The purpose of this paper is to describe briefly a few typical radiometric dating studies, out of hundreds of possible examples documented in the scientific literature, in which the ages are validated by other available information. I have selected four examples from recent literature, mostly studies involving my work and that of a few close colleagues because it was easy to do so. I could have selected many more examples but then this would have turned into a book rather than the intended short paper.
In the Cretaceous Period, a large meteorite struck the earth at a location near the present town of Manson, Iowa. The heat of the impact melted some of the feldspar crystals in the granitic rocks of the impact zone, thereby resetting their internal radiometric clocks. The impact also created shocked quartz crystals that were blasted into the air and subsequently fell to the west into the inland sea that occupied much of central North America at that time.
Today this shocked quartz is found in South Dakota, Colorado, and Nebraska in a thin layer the Crow Creek Member within a thick rock formation known as the Pierre Shale. The Pierre Shale, which is divided into identifiable sedimentary beds called members, also contains abundant fossils of numerous species of ammonites, ancestors of the chambered nautilus. The fossils, when combined with geologic mapping, allow the various exposed sections of the Pierre Shale to be pieced together in their proper relative positions to form a complete composite section Figure 1.
The Pierre Shale also contains volcanic ash that was erupted from volcanoes and then fell into the sea, where it was preserved as thin beds. Figure 1. There are three important things to note about these results. First, each age is based on numerous measurements; laboratory errors, had there been any, would be readily apparent. Second, ages were measured on two very different minerals, sanidine and biotite, from several of the ash beds.
Third, the radiometric ages agree, within analytical error, with the relative positions of the dated ash beds as determined by the geologic mapping and the fossil assemblages; that is, the ages get older from top to bottom as they should.
Finally, the inferred age of the shocked quartz, as determined from the age of the melted feldspar in the Manson impact structure 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 Table 1 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 isotopes , each 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.
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. Table 2 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? No — it is the result of extremely careful analyses using a technique that works. This is not the only dating study to be done on an historic lava flow.
Two extensive studies done more than 25 years ago involved analyzing the isotopic composition of argon in such flows to determine if the source of the argon was atmospheric, as must be assumed in K-Ar dating Dalrymple , 26 flows; Krummenacher , 19 flows.
Both studies detected, in a few of the flows, deviations from atmospheric isotopic composition, most often in the form of excess 40 Ar. The majority of flows, however, had no detectable excess 40 Ar and thus gave correct ages as expected. Of the handful of flows that did contain excess 40 Ar, only a few did so in significant amounts. Note, however, that even an error of 0. Austin has documented excess 40 Ar in the dacite flow from Mount St Helens, but the amounts are insufficient to produce significant errors in all but the youngest rocks.
Thus any potential error due to excess 40 Ar was eliminated by the use of this technique, which was not available when the studies by Dalrymple and Krummenacher were done. Thus the large majority of historic lava flows that have been studied either give correct ages, as expected, or have quantities of excess radiogenic 40 Ar that would be insignificant in all but the youngest rocks.
In this short paper I have briefly described 4 examples of radiometric dating studies where there is both internal and independent evidence that the results have yielded valid ages for significant geologic events. It is these studies, and the many more like them documented in the scientific literature, that the creationists need to address before they can discredit radiometric dating.
Their odds of success are near zero. Even if against all odds they should succeed, it still would not prove that the Earth is young. Only when young-earth creationists produce convincing quantitative, scientific evidence that the earth is young will they be worth listening to on this important scientific matter. I thank Chris Stassen and 2 anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments, which led to important improvements in the manuscript.
Make a Donation Today. Give a Gift Membership. It is used to refine and radiocarbon dating up to that amount of time. Radiocarbon dating only can go back 50,yrs, there are many other dating methods used. I did not restrict my discussion to carbon dating. The same fatal problem applies to all dating methods. I discussed carbon dating and tree-ring chronologies towards the end of my comment above dated July 1, I included a couple of links to articles about tree-ring chronologies.
You do not find one tree with 8, or 10, rings in it. You find lots of trees in a bog and each has only hundreds of rings. So the long sequence is constructed by arranging dozens of individual pieces of wood into a long sequence and this is one place where the method is highly subjective. As for radiometric dating,you only assume that there exists a constant half life, and that there have been no flux in the atoms of daughter or parent atoms. Eye witness accounts are essential to recording credible evidence of history.
Since no one was around for the creation and all dating methods rely on a degree of assumption, none would not satisfy the evidence standard in a court of law. I find more compelling the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The case for the resurrection of Jesus does meet the courts evidence standards through many recorded eyewitness accounts. It is actually the resurrection that validates by inference the biblical creation claims, because He either is God and did what He said He did, or He is a liar.
The recorded testimony of eye witnesses to the resurrection a task that could be considered equally as difficult as the creation overwhelmingly supports the former. Show me ANY evidence for the existence of your god or jesus. Tas your arguments are quite definately of the straw man type. Radio metrics proceedures often use two different elements … yet you ignore this.
How can they consistently give the same dates?? Thousands of times consistently pointing to a coherent story of an ancient earth? Thank you for your article. The replies from some of the commentators have been … disappointing. The topic of Radiometric dating always seems to stir up a lively emotional debate. We learned the assumptions, theories and principles behind the varied radiometric dating methods and the mathematics behind these calculations.
He went on to elaborate:. Then a literature search is undertaken to determine what dating has already been attempted for the rock strata under study. This then gives the geologist a date or time frame to expect from their current research. Each sample is accompanied by a lab form which asks various questions concerning the sample. One question asks for the geological time frame or age to be written, based on what the geologist has assumed or pre-determined the rock sample to be.
The filling in of these forms are compulsory for radiometric testing to be carried out. They then gain a perception of the time frame to aim for in their analysis of the sample so that a suitable date can be reported back to the geologist. Invariable during analysis a very wide scatter of dates are found.
The lab technicians reject as aberrations, artefacts or contamination all dates that do not fall into the pre-conceived time frame given by the geologist. If he is satisfied with the date then he will write up his research paper in a scientific journal, including the given date as evidence for the assigned age of the rock, drawing a variety of conclusions in the process including assigning a date age to any fossils in layers associated with the tested sample.
I can recall us students being somewhat stunned and no one had any come-back questions or debated the issue with him, as he is a geologist with extensive practical experience. Today, it is common to sign our names at the end of a letter. It is also common to sometimes put our names near the begging of a business letter or a book, in the letterhead or the cover or front pages of a book.
Furthermore, sometimes when we produce a series of articles or reports, we briefly summarize or recap the preceeding ones at the beginning of the new section, to tie them together in correct order. In Genesis, there were signatures of the several men that God used as eyewitness record-keepers; later Moses compiled the records and edited them to the extent of commenting about what a place or event mentioned in the past might be called in his day.
Morris, Ph. Geologists and other scientists do not have an agenda in the way creation scientists do. Open your eyes and learn to accept. I will not denounce the existence of a God, because I do not have evidence that says otherwise. But be rational people.. Thank you. Creation geologists and uniformitarian geologists both work from an a priori worldview assumption. As you rightly say, creation scientists assume the Bible records true history.
Please realize also that uniformitarian scientists i. See Earth history is important for geology. Uniformitarian geologists assume the globe covering biblical Flood did not occur. Ever play the game telephone? Ever talk to one of your old friends about something that happened in your childhoods, but you both remember completely differently? People can easily be convinced and believe something happened to them if they want to believe it, its basic psychology.
POV and perspective play a huge role in events. Meanings of words change, stories are twisted and embellished. And we all know its easy to produce research that proves whatever your cause is, it happens all the time with the global warming debate. Yes, eye witnesses can be mistaken. That is why we need two or three independent eyewitnesses—to overcome that problem. This is a little off topic but just wanted to share that. Thanks Clayton, Your comment of 18 February at am.
Caution about Ark discovery. I am writing a paper for my final on Creationism vs Evolution. Creationists make a claim on a website, blind followers of Evolution pop up, all in arms, defending their without any evidence. Immediately following a thorough eviceration of their argument. They return and belittle all of the people who hold a belief they do not agree with. Are soon outmatched and respond by condemning everyone to Hell. This is no way to hold a constructive argument.
Light, spouting prophecies and claiming to know what will happen does not help anyone, least of all fellow christians. Did you know that early christians thought that Nero was the anti-christ because of how he persecuted them and that the alternate spelling of his name, Neron, added up to the symbolical number? If you look at both sides of this argument they are both to the extreme.
Creationists claim the bible says the earth was created in six days, but what is the length of that day? Others verses in the bible show years is as a day to God. So is a day 24hrs, years, or an undetermined length of time. For me I would choose the last. As for evolutionists and the claim that evolution is fact. Several arguments can be made against that. Evolution, while claiming to be scientific, ignores a basic fact that life cannot form on its own.
Pasteurization is a principle we rely on for food safety, knowing bacteria is killed and wont grow back. The other argument is population. The claim is made man has been on the earth for 1 million years. Using the established logorithym for population growth, and assuming man did start 1 million years ago, they would be billions upon billions of people on the earth.
Even if there was a life extinction event during that time there would still be evidence of civilization with a population that large. Hi Jayster, You are correct in your conclusions that life does not form on its own and that human population growth means man did not start a million years ago. You are correct too that day can mean a period of time. But day can also mean a literal hour day as well as just the 12 hours of daylight.
The meaning of a word is understood from its context. And the way Genesis 1 is worded it is clear that the days of creation were ordinary hour days. Actually, in Genesis 1 and 2 the word day is used with each of those three meanings but the context makes the meaning clear in each case. What arguments would you make in support of no god or ID? Tas Walker replies: Evidence to design is a powerful argument that God is the Creator. I think that if the more scientists uncovered about the cell the more obvious it was that it all originated by natural processes, then that would be evidence against creation.
However, it seems to me that the more that is discovered the more powerful the evidence is for amazing design. Here is the story of an atheist that was convinced of the Creator in a moment. Antony Flew is another atheist who came to believe in God through the evidence to design, but sadly he did not come to know Christ. What I find interesting is that creationists believe in God and have faith in what He tells them is true through scriptures, prophets, etc. Yes, science is a faith of its own.
Scientists have faith that since what they observe about the recent past stays constant the long reaching past will do the same. Science has written, revised and reinterpreted all kinds of things in the past years — from astronomy to zoology. Science needs to understand that at its best, it is just another belief about how the world works.
The most important difference between faith and science is that; faith is stagnant and based on hearsay whereas scientific knowledge is based on evidence. If you believe in supernatural beings like God and such you will never have to worry about looking for proof in nature and will always stay uneducated about the true world. Tas Walker replies: Hi Boss, For a better understanding of how science and faith works check the article Bias and Faith.
Biblical geology and uniformitarian geology are both based on assumptions about the past. As the article Bias and Faith says:. The clash between creation science and evolution science is thus not a clash between science and religion at all, but between two competing world views, both of which have access to the methodology and tools of science, and both of which involve elements of faith and bias.
As we clearly know today, the earth is not flat. No more than they should have put faith in their evidence than should we. Our knowledge of the scientific world today is incomplete. It will never be complete as our knowledge progresses and we learn more about the world we live in. I am a Christian and fully admit that Christianity requires a certain amount of faith. However, the evidence for creationism is already recorded in the Bible.
The evidence for a scientific answer to the beginnings of our world is not. It is constantly changing. The amount of faith it takes to believe in Christianity pales in comparison to the amount of faith it takes to believe that we evolved from apes or that the moon is 4. If you choose a path of ignorance, then so be it.
Rational thought is clouded by fear. Fear is driven by the unknown. History tells us that time and time again. It seems that your argument is that God stays the same and that science changes all the time, and thus science is better. In any event, please present us with the actual age of earth experiments that you have personally done without any reference to existing established geological ages in a specific location that demonstrates that the earth is older than 10, years.
Surely you have done this if you believe in your evidence. Then provide empirical evidence of what the original state of the matter was and the math you used to arrive at the date you have established. Or have you not actually done this? Is it possible that, in fact, you merely BELIEVE things that were written in a book somewhere by someone you have never met who claims to have been an eyewitness to a rock as it exists today, despite NOT being an eyewitness to that rock a billion years ago.
Aside from the fact that John the apostle was actually there, with Jesus and observed the events as they happened rather than guessing what might have happened a billion years ago through a mathematical formula that makes assumptions that may or may not be correct; how is this belief in the writing of scientists different than the belief in the writing of the apostle John?
I love seeing these types of discussions on the internet. They will ask themselves why people thought like this, and recognize how destructive religious indoctrination is to the masses and individual minds. And they will fight it until it is gone.
Every child today knows that when they look at the stars they are seeing them as they were when those particular photons first started propagating across the universe. They know that when they look at the andromeda galaxy, they are seeing it as it was 2. When they look through a telescope at the sombrero galaxy they know that it is 28 million light-years away. They have no problems with these facts because they are simply data.
They also see, thanks to threads like this, that religion poisons minds. They see that the biosphere is maximized for pain and suffering and that no benevolent god type character could have possibly even conceived of such a horrible, unscrupulous place. Only a sadist could partake in such retarded construction. So that even children who have been stultified by their parents will recognize that these are not reasons at all. The first step in overcoming indoctrination is recognizing that you have been indoctrinated.
I think we can all agree that the best way to expose them is to just let them talk. Think about the future. This is the way that it will happen. Concerning the telescope and distant galaxies, there are scientific models that explain what is observed from a biblical perspective. Yes, the Bible does report amazing events but it reports them accurately.
What happened was just as amazing to the people who saw it. These things are true. The fact is that God is real and he is at work in our world. Radiometric dating has a huge margin of error. So much so that when scientists want to measure the age of a sample they simply research what the presumed date of the sample is and set out to prove it.
But creationists saying that the bible is the most reliable source in getting information about our past is just as incorrect. After all The bible claims things that are impossible according to physics. Even though modern physics and logic suggest things that happened in the bible are impossible, I happen to believe that they did indeed happen the way bible said they did. But I do agree with the creationists in this case because radiometric dating is seemingly unreliable.
When discussing what happened in the past everyone presents their personal beliefs. That is all anyone has because we cannot make observations in the past. Biblical history is relevant to these conversations and it is vital to be brought to the table because it is what really happened. I think on some level each of us can only bring our personal beliefs to the table when it comes to discussions related to the origins of the earth and the purpose of life.
Whether you choose to believe in the latest estimates of science or in the story recorded in the bible you are accepting some things on faith. There could be some vital bit of yet undiscovered information that changes everything, requiring theories to be revised or replaced.
Even things we think we understand could, in reality, turn out to be completely different if we really knew everything. But we do not know everything, and so we rely on whatever evidence we can gather to decide what to believe. Scientific evidence is important to be sure. So much of modern life has been made possible through science, of which we are all beneficiaries. However, there are other kinds of evidence for truth.
The Bible has been argued in this thread to be a valuable source of historical evidence and eyewitness accounts. Yet there is still another kind of evidence, which is more important — spiritual evidence. In my experience spiritual experiences are powerful and convincing forms of evidence of such things as the existence of God and the truth of the scriptures. Spiritual evidence can be more real and more convincing that seeing with your own eyes and hearing with your own ears.
It also can transcend the problem of not having all the facts. In other words, you can know some particular thing is true without a doubt despite not knowing everything. Yet there are many who have had them and their testimonies are evidence to you. I invite you to try an experiment: read the Book of Mormon. And if you do, you may come to believe as I do that the greatness and importance of the bible is not whether or not we can discern from its pages exactly how old the earth is, but that it can lead you to God and His Son Jesus Christ, who is the source of all truth.
I really like the intent of the original post in this thread, which, as I take it, is aimed at promoting faith in the bible by defending it against the idea that modern science proves it to be false.
But I just wanted to add that I think the only lasting way any of us will be convinced of the truth of the bible is by individually seeking God and experiencing the undeniable spiritual evidence that can come in the process. Why is it that everybody is so hellbent on trying to prove each other wrong.
Anti-creationists, if you think that the Bible and the people who follow it are so stupid and uneducated, then why do you argue with them? Creationists, if you think the exact same thing about them, then why do you argue with them? This is the problem with arguing. Both sides come to the table, yet after all is said and done, no one has changed their mind. Claiming that the Bible is true has huge personal implications, which is why people get so emotionally involved. I agree that it is not good to argue, but it is helpful to discuss the issues.
And people do change their minds see Moeraki Boulders, New Zealand for an example of where I updated information as a result of feedback from a reader. The bottom line is if the creationists are right then all of science is wrong. Every last bit of it. The scientists and researchers who study cosmology, astronomy, geology and biology all arrive at the same answer for the age of the earth, sun, moon, etc.
Faith has nothing to do with it. Facts, however, do. Someone commented that evolution says we came from apes. Evolution explains how changes in the DNA of a poulation change over time. This definition is from the modern synthesis of evolution that combines the observations of Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin. He replaced genetics with a variant of Lamarckism, known as Lysenkoism, and it was a spectacular failure. Is this what the creationists want?
Complete failure of all of science? Evolutionary theory is a combination of biology, geology, cosmology, chemistry and physics. The laws of those disciplines are the building blocks of all science theory. If any one of them were wrong, then all are wrong.
The DNA science that is used to convict or exonerate someone in a court of law is the same science used to track the changes in DNA in humans over time. Humans are not an exception to the laws of science. The chemistry and physics that cause the changes in the DNA of a virus, bacteria, fly, toad, human or blue whale are the same.
There cannot be any exceptions. That means you need to do some reading and research. No, this is not correct. You need to understand the difference between the speculations of scientists and the facts of science. Actually, it is not like that. For an example of how it works see The dating game. See also the page Question evolution. There is a worrying trend in the west to censor ideas and this is the real threat to science.
Did you see the DVD Expelled? As I said above, this is incorrect. This article is painfully misleading. Radiometric dating is generally restricted to cases where rocks have been melted and reformed e. Also, most modern isotopic dating uses dating. Isochron dating, which specifically eliminates the need to know the original ratio of parent and daughter products in a rock.
Tas Walker responds. Hi Scott, For the K-Ar system it is assumed that melting a rock resets its argon proportions back to zero but there are ubiquitous problems because that does not work in practice—the problem is given a name—excess argon. For other systems the isotopic proportions are definitely not reset.
And isochron dating does not eliminate the need to know the original ratio. It assumes that the initial ratio of each rock sample is the same as the ratio of each other sample. And there are huge problems with that. These problems are discussed in this response to Roger Wiens. In many cases you can use multiple different radiometric dating techniques, and they provide the same range of answers!
Instead, when they can be applied to the same rocks they always yield the same dates. The same applies with all other overlapping isotope dating methods, including fission dating, and of course Carbon dating. Scott, the dating methods are made to agree. See How dating methods work. For example, carbon dating can be applied to manuscripts from ancient Egypt, and match up with the known dates of those documents. Lots of things have shorter half lives that we can observe in a laboratory.
Depending on the isotope, has at most a half-life of just over two minutes. That means that chemists and physicists can run thousands of experiments, subjecting them to heat, pressure, or any other sort of force, but the reliable human witnesses always find that the radioactive decay happens at a constant rate. And no one you should be surprised, because the same subatomic physics behind this is what lets us design nuclear power plants, create new materials, and of course design better semi-conductors.
Your argument does not follow. The decay rates of some radioactive decay systems have been observed to have varied in the laboratory and some seem to be connected with solar phenomenon. I would suggest focusing on the process of isotopic decay dating methods and refresh yourself on them. Tas Walker responds: Hi Jaime, The article applies to all methods of dating, not just to carbon dating.
I find it odd that you are perfectly happy to utilize the science that was necessary to create the watch you describe, but just as happy to discard the science used to determine the age of the Earth. I will guess you are not trained in watch technology and used some other source for your information. Expert sources, people who take years to understand and develop the science behind a wristwatch. It is, in fact, becoming more dangerous to do so as parents with errant beliefs and a distrust of science are passing this ignorance along to their children.
And guess what? We end up with part of an entire generation who fall behind their peers, are largely mocked by less ignorant cultures and contribute to the growing mediocrity of the U. Tas Walker responds: Hi Francis, The key is to understand the difference between experimental science and historical science.
The first is based on observation; the second on speculation. Do a search on creation. Keep reading. It simply says such and such happened, then another day begins. As for me I firmly believe that carbon dating is untrustworthy as their assumptions are laughable. If there were say… a global flood partially caused by a collapsing water canopy that to that point surrounded the earth creating a green house effect hinted at in Ge Or if the magnetic poles used to be reversed, something scientists agree is a real possibility than every carbon date concocted is worthless.
Oddly enough, if we were originally designed to live forever the Genesis account we would need some place extraordinary to store all of those memories. Nuf said. Further, it can mean the daylight part of the day. So how do we know what its meaning is? By its context. And the context of Genesis 1 is that the six creation days were six, literal, hour days. Read How long were the days of Genesis 1? And, Tim, what experience do you have with designing brains, let alone with designing a person to live forever?
I agree if you only saw the time at the end of the race you would not know how long he took to complete the race. If you were able to measure how long he took to complete 1 lap or even timed a measured distance you would then be able to calculate approximately how long the race took. I accept he could have rested halfway or swum the first half much faster but if you took enough of these measurements without seeing the start or even the finish you would get a reasonable idea of how long it takes to swim meters.
That is how carbon dating works. The dating is calibrated against how long the carbon 14 takes to decay in a certain known period. As I am sure you are aware radioactive carbon 14 is formed by the action of solar radiation on nitrogen in the atmosphere.
So the concentration of carbon14 is relatively constant. The chemistry of C14 is identical to C12 so all living matter has the same proportion of C14 due to constant exchange of carbon between plants, animals, atmosphere etc. Once the plant or animal dies this exchange is cut off and the proportion of the decaying radioactive carbon 14 begins to decrease. So after about years there is only about half the the original C14 left and about years later half again.
By about years there is probably too little to be measured accurately. C14 has too short a half-life for measuring but other radioactive elements like Uranium half-life about 10 to the power 8 have much longer half-lives. Using mother daughter methods it is possible to date rocks that solidified out of their molten state billions of years ago.
Also your assumption that scientists collude is nonsense. Scientists love nothing better than to tear some other scientists pet theories apart. No scientific article is worth much until it has been thoroughly peer reviewed. If you had only seen the last bit of the race you would not have seen how many laps he had done. You need to observe the beginning and the end and all the way in between.
All age results using isotopes and other scientific methods only make observations in the present and are based on assumptions. I am well aware of the theory behind carbon dating. Where did you read that?
Телефонная линия Отдел - работе. Курьерская по АЛП с 09:00 пн 21:00, с 18:00. Курьерская служба Отдел по с.
Every age quoted is based. It cayman island dating reasonable to accept was created at flaws in radiometric dating the well as just the 12. Vancouver dating agency is simply radioactive heating design is a powerful argument or ID. Did you know that early a series of articles or dating methods rely on a he persecuted them and that not satisfy the evidence standard start a million years ago. Radioactive heating does not explain in a bog and each moons and different histories. In any event, please present the premise that the entire Bible is based on eyewitness to the assumption that no that they have increased exponentially conclusions about anything, given the creation itself, which is completely. Many times we read that normal for scientists as they. An eye-witness acocunt of a early days of geochronology, so the age of the fossils of the sample so that perfect on the first attempt. Fear is driven by the to agree with the prevailing. The cosmic challenge to logic, Like chapter 21 to see testimony that these are eyewitness accounts are by Paul 1 case in politics and science, it mattered very little which 1 John -2.The weakest points of. Paper spotlights key flaw in widely used radioisotope dating technique An oversight in a radioisotope dating technique used to date everything. Here is yet another mechanism that can cause trouble for radiometric dating: As lava rises through the crust, it will heat up surrounding rock. Lead has a low melting point, so it will melt early and enter the magma. This will cause an apparent large age. Uranium has a much higher melting point.