Register Login Contact Us

Espanol Talkorigins radiometric dating seeking men for dating

In the atmosphere of the earth, Ar 40 constitutes This is about times the amount that would be generated by radioactive decay over the hypothetical 4. Certainly this is not produced by an influx from outer space. Since geochronologists assume that errors due to presence of initial Ar 40 are small, their are highly questionable.

Somerset, Wisconsin, 54025 women dating

Online: Yesterday


Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research ICR have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon C dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters.

My age: I am 54

Views: 417

submit to reddit

Claim CD :.

Source: Brown, Walt, CreationWiki response: Talk. Origins quotes in blue.

First of all, according to Talk. Origins' own source, the "dates" are not linear with distance as plate tectonics would predict.

There is a definite upward curve in the data. Furthermore, the dates given are the "Best Kr dates" this indicates that they had other K-Ar that are not included. It could be that they do fit the theory, but there is no way to know since only the best ones are given.

It is known that 40Ar from the source material can remain in lava after it hardens so the pattern may just represent the distribution of 40Ar in the mantle under the Pacific Ocean. There are also several factors such as volcanoes not following a consistent pattern,missing heat, the chemistry of the basalt, and many others that call into question the interpretation of Hawaii even being formed by a hot spot.

So Isaak's argument is highly suspect.

How old is the earth

Talk Origins' source article is actually talking about the calibrating of radiometric dating to the Milankovitch cycles. So once again we have consistent dates resulting from calibration. Furthermore, the chart the article uses to demonstrate the calibration process has no hint of objective matching between the layers and the Milankovitch cycles. Contrary to Talk.

Origins' claim, luminescence dating is not independent of radiometric datingand neither is electron spin resonance also mentioned in the article. They both rely on the absorption of radiation, from radioactive decay. In the article the author uses 3 uranium methods as well as luminescence and electron spin resonance.

A loss of uranium would affect all 5 methods causing them to give excessively old ages and it could do so in a manner that would produce consistent ages, but consistently excessively old ages. The author alludes to the possibility of a loss of uranium but ignores the possible affect on luminescence and electron spin resonance.

The simple fact is that consistency between mutually dependent dating methods is no surprise. According to the secular time line, Indians came to the America's around 11, years ago.

This largely based on interpretation and carbon dating. Inhuman footprints ,using the luminescence methods among others, were dated at 40, years old.

Radiometric dating gives unreliable (www.thepark.bars)

Even more interesting, an other study dated the rocks at 1. First of all, the calibrating of radiometric dating to the geologic column would tend to produce an artifcal deeper-is-older pattern. Finally, accelerated nuclear decay during the Flood would produce such a pattern since volcanic rock would tend to form time horizons in such an order. The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples.

How good are those young-earth arguments?

They ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent. First off, creationists don't ignore consistent dates, but present several reasons why their consistency does not prove accuracy. Creationists refer to inconsistent dates simply to show that they exist.

Yes, the vast majority of published dates do show a degree of constancy, but the question remains as to how often inconsistent dates are filtered from publication. Talk Origins is assuming that no filtering goes on, but their own comments not only suggest that it does happen, but with a good degree of frequency.

To answer this question would take a well-sampled objective study that would take a lot of time and money. What is needed is a totally objective sample of radiometric dates from all over the world.

And Then there is that case of the KBS Tuff - which exposes radiometric dating as a pseudo-science that is neither objective nor accurate -- and that the "dates" obtained are very often manipulated in order to attempt to fool people into believing in evolution by promoting the idea of a "mythions of years" old earth. From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science.

Jump to:search. Response Article This article Radiometric dating gives unreliable Talk. Origins is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk. Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Teaching about radiometric dating

: Anticreation response Talk. Origins Archive. Personal tools Log in Request .