It is a pity, that now I can not express - it is very occupied. I will return - I will necessarily express the opinion on this question.

## Radiometric Dating Does Work! . NCSE

These claims generally land in three different categories: 1 radiometric dating assumes that initial conditions concentrations of mother and daughter nuclei are known, 2 radiometric dating assumes that rocks are closed systems and 3 radiometric dating assumes that decay rates are constant. Most young earth creationists reject all of these points. As a scientific skeptics, we ask ourselves: is this really the case? Let us critically examine each of these claims and see if they hold up against the science. While doing so, we will have to learn about how radiometric dating actually works.

Of course, the table, so constructed, will only give the correct calibration if the tree-ring chronology which was used to construct it had placed each ring in the true calendar year in which it grew. Long tree-ring chronologies are rare there are only two that I am aware of which are of sufficient length to be of interest to radiocarbon and difficult to construct.

They have been slowly built up by matching ring patterns between trees of different ages, both living and dead, from a given locality. As one might expect, the further back the tree-ring chronology extends, the more difficult it becomes to locate ancient tree specimens with which to extend the chronology.

To alleviate this problem it seems, from the published literature, to be a common practice to first radiocarbon date a large number of potential tree specimens and then select those with appropriate radiocarbon age for incorporation into the tree-ring chronology. Such a procedure introduces a bias into the construction of the tree-ring chronology for the earliest millennia which could possibly obscure any unexpected radiocarbon behavior.

It is not clear to what extent this circular process has influenced the final tree-ring calibrations of radiocarbon.

Radiometric dating methods are very accurate and very trustworthy. Creationist arguments to the contrary are riddled with flaws, as is the. Radiometric dating involves dating rocks or other objects by . engaged in unsuccessfully attempting to debunk methods of radiometric dating. This belief in long ages for the earth and the existence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating. These long time periods are computed by measuring the .

Efforts by creationist scientists to obtain the raw data from which the oldest tree-ring chronology has been constructed to investigate this possible source of bias have so far not met with success. Until the raw data does become available for general scrutiny, creationists are clearly justified in maintaining a high degree of skepticism. In any event, the calibration tables which have been produced from tree rings do not support the conventional steady-state model of radiocarbon which Libby introduced.

Rather, they lend support to the idea that significant perturbations to radiocarbon have occurred in the past. Creationists are interested in the truth. This involves exposing areas of weakness and error in the conventional interpretation of radiocarbon results as well as suggesting better understandings of radiocarbon congruent with a Biblical, catastrophist, Flood model of earth history.

Debunking Creationism: "Radiometric Dating Is Unreliable!"At ICR research into alternative interpretations of radiocarbon which are not in conflict with the Biblical record of the past continue to be actively pursued and a special radiocarbon laboratory is being developed for research into the method. Radiocarbon holds unique potential for the student of earth history who adheres to a recent creation.

It is doubtful that other radiometric dating techniques such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium will ever be of much value or interest to the young-earth creationist who desires to develop further our understanding of the past because they are only applicble on a time scale of millions or billions of years.

Radiocarbon, however, is applicable on a time scale of thousands of years. A proper understanding of radiocarbon will undoubtedly figure very significantly into the unraveling of such questions as when and possibly why the mammoths became extinct, the duration of the glacial period following the Flood, and the general chronology of events from the Flood to the present.

Creationists are not so much interested in debunking radiocarbon as we are in developing a proper understanding of it to answer many of our own questions regarding the past. At the present time it appears that the conventional radiocarbon dating technique is on relatively firm ground for dates which fall within the past 3, years. For periods of time prior to this, there are legitimate reasons to question the validity of the conventional results and seek for alternative interpretations.

Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the. While doing so, we will have to learn about how radiometric dating Follow Debunking Denialism on Facebook or Twitter for new updates. Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for the gropings and guesses of authors of the early sixties in an effort to debunk.

He received his Ph. Cite this article: Aardsma, G. Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating. Skip to main content. MYTH 6. Creationists are only interested in debunking radiocarbon. More Radiometric Dating. Meteorites, most of which are fragments of asteroids, are very interesting objects to study because they provide important evidence about the age, composition, and history of the early solar system.

There are many types of meteorites. Some are from primitive asteroids whose material is little modified since they formed from the early solar nebula. Others are from larger asteroids that got hot enough to melt and send lava flows to the surface. A few are even from the Moon and Mars. The most primitive type of meteorites are called chondrites, because they contain little spheres of olivine crystals known as chondrules.

Because of their importance, meteorites have been extensively dated radiometrically; the vast majority appear to be 4. Some meteorites, because of their mineralogy, can be dated by more than one radiometric dating technique, which provides scientists with a powerful check of the validity of the results. The results from three meteorites are shown in Table 1. Many more, plus a discussion of the different types of meteorites and their origins, can be found in Dalrymple There are 3 important things to know about the ages in Table 1.

The first is that each meteorite was dated by more than one laboratory — Allende by 2 laboratories, Guarena by 2 laboratories, and St Severin by four laboratories. This pretty much eliminates any significant laboratory biases or any major analytical mistakes. The second thing is that some of the results have been repeated using the same technique, which is another check against analytical errors. The third is that all three meteorites were dated by more than one method — two methods each for Allende and Guarena, and four methods for St Severin.

This is extremely powerful verification of the validity of both the theory and practice of radiometric dating. In the case of St Severin, for example, we have 4 different natural clocks actually 5, for the Pb-Pb method involves 2 different radioactive uranium isotopeseach running at a different rate and each using elements that respond to chemical and physical conditions in much different ways.

And yet, they all give the same result to within a few percent. Is this a remarkable coincidence? Scientists have concluded that it is not; it is instead a consequence of the fact that radiometric dating actually works and works quite well. Creationists who wants to dispute the conclusion that primitive meteorites, and therefore the solar system, are about 4.

One of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period.

# Debunking radiometric dating

The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary K-T boundary Alvarez and Asaro ; Alvarez We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula.

Measuring the age of this impact event independently of the stratigraphic evidence is an obvious test for radiometric methods, and a number of scientists in laboratories around the world set to work.

In addition to shocked quartz grains and high concentrations of iridium, the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact. The K-T tektites were ejected into the atmosphere and deposited some distance away. Tektites are easily recognizable and form in no other way, so the discovery of a sedimentary bed the Beloc Formation in Haiti that contained tektites and that, from fossil evidence, coincided with the K-T boundary provided an obvious candidate for dating.

Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit.

The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites. The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimeters above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically.

Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are Table 2.

There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early s. The boundary between these periods the K-T boundary is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide.

Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more.

Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. In the early afternoon of August 24, 79 CE, Mt Vesuvius erupted violently, sending hot ash flows speeding down its flanks.

These flows buried and destroyed Pompeii and other nearby Roman cities. We know the exact day of this eruption because Pliny the Younger carefully recorded the event. They separated sanidine crystals from a sample of one of the ash flows. Incremental heating experiments on 12 samples of sanidine yielded 46 data points that resulted in an isochron age of 94 years. The actual age of the flow in was years.

Is this just a coincidence? A list of percentage remaining that corresponds to the number of the relative half-lives elapsed are presented as follows: No.

Or in other words, there would only be one atom responds to decay if there are two. If any four atoms, let say, atoms A, B, C and D, would be selected to test the decay, atom A would have much lesser chance to respond to decay due to the existence of atoms B, C and D.

This mountain certainly consists of a huge sum of atoms when huge volume is covered.

## Refuting “Radiometric Dating Methods Makes Untenable Assumptions!”

What if the so-called, radioactive decay, would not cause any decay but it would restart its initial operation after numerous years later, the reliability of radiometric dating method is in question. The ease to locate Carbon that would respond to decay currently has put the reliability of radiometric dating method into question.

No, it is not. The half-life can be, and has been, determined by careful experiments that conform with the models used. You have misunderstood the basics of nuclear physics. This is not the case. You have a certain about of a certain radioactive substance. It is something that is the case for the population of all nuclei. It tells you nothing about a single atom. When you test the decay rates, you do not select two atoms, you use a substance that contains billions and billions of atoms.

Then you plug those values into this formula:. This can be derived from simple facts by anyone with knowledge of differential and integral calculus.

One way this is done in many radioactive dating techniques is to use an .. Other than radiometric dating, I didn't see any significant geologic. Could someone debunk this and explain how carbon dating works. I don't know much about carbon dating or how it works but i doubt the creationist have got. The field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity . Creationists are only interested in debunking radiocarbon.

No, that is not how it works. Eventually, all the radioactive nuclei in the mountain will decay. Note that the above years have been computed up to 4. Carbon is not used to measure the age of the earth. Only substances with much longer half-lives are used for dating the age of the earth, such as radioactive forms of Rb Rbwhich has a half-life of 48 billion years.

Pingback: Is the bible the only reason to conclude the earth is 6, years old?

Hate email lists? Follow on Facebook and Twitter instead. Email Address. Skip to content Debunking Creationism. August 12, June 11, Emil Karlsson assumptionsclosed systemcreationismdating methodsdecay ratesinitial conditionsisochron. How does radiometric dating work? Radiometric dating and testing for contamination and disturbances On of the great things about many forms of radiometric dating is that they are self-checking.

Radiometric dating and initial conditions A second property of isochron diagrams is that it actually gives the initial amount of daughter isotope as a result of the method. Radiometric dating and decay rates In a last ditch effort, young earth creationists exclaim that scientists just assume, without warrant, that decay rate are constant.

Conclusion Scientists do not assume that rocks have been closed systems, but they test for it. References and Further Reading Dalrymple, G. Hedman, M. The Age of Everything. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Like this: Like Loading