Online
94111 days on xHamster
91374M profile views
71290K subscribers
41916 comments left

Radiometric dating errors

Most likely, the effect will be dependent on the age.

I would think that the older the sample, the larger the overestimate.

However, it’s important to note that some radioactive dates (like those that come from carbon-14) don’t use the isochron method, so they aren’t affected by this particular flaw.

As a young-earth creationist, I look at this issue in a different way.

A helium balloon, for example, will deflate over time, because the helium atoms diffuse through the balloon and into the surrounding air.

A good isochron was supposed to be rock-solid evidence (pun intended) that the radioactive date is reliable. I suspect that this flaw is not the last one that will be uncovered.Their age was measured to be 6.0 /- 0.3 billion years old. Those who are committed to an ancient age for the earth currently believe that it is 4.6 billion years old.Obviously, then, the error in that measurement is 1.4 billion years, not 0.3 billion years!The isochron is supposed to take care of such issues.Essentially, rather than looking at the amounts of Rb-87 and Sr-87, we look at their compared to Sr-86.

If those rocks really have been sitting around on the moon for billions of years, I suspect that the the wide range of physical and chemical processes which occurred over that time period had a much more profound effect on the uncertainty of the age determination.

Please or register to post comments
If spammers comment on your content, only you can see and manage such comments Delete all
Sep 19, 2011. Radiometric dating is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. 
29-Aug-2018 02:47
Reply
The use of different dating methods on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that's powerful evidence that the ages are probably correct. Along this line, Roger Wiens, a scientist at. 
29-Aug-2018 02:52
Reply
Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers. To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified. 
29-Aug-2018 02:56
Reply
Accuracy of dating. Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay. 
29-Aug-2018 03:02
Reply
The basic equation of radiometric dating requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation. The possible confounding effects of contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do. 
29-Aug-2018 03:06
Reply
Yes, radiometric dating is a very accurate way to date the know it is accurate because radiometric dating is based on the radioactive decay of unstable isotopes. For example, the element Uranium exists as one of several isotopes, some of which are unstable. When an unstable Uranium U isotope decays, it turns. 
29-Aug-2018 03:09
Reply
It also says that the 'actual' ages are measured by radiometric dating—an expensive technique performed in modern laboratories. The guide describes a number of radiometric methods and states that for 'suitable specimens the errors involved in radiometric dating usually amount to several percent of the age result. 
29-Aug-2018 03:13
Reply

Radiometric dating errors introduction

Radiometric dating errors

Recent posts

29-Aug-2018 13:08
30-Aug-2018 08:32
30-Aug-2018 12:19
30-Aug-2018 19:30