Problems with radioactive datingreading this article i could not help but think of the scientists who use this dating method to confirm their already held beliefs are like marksmen archers who shoot an arrow then go paint the bulls eye around it. in 1997 a team of scientists from the berkeley geochronology center and the university of naples decided to see if the40ar/39ar method of radiometric dating could accurately measure the age of this very young (by geological standards) volcanic material. lead 204, which is not produced by radioactive decay provides a measure of what was "original" lead. how could all of this be so if the 40ar/39ar dating technique did not work? 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. creationists seem to think that a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, but such a conclusion is illogical. of course can only be used on geologically more recent items (the last few tens of thousands of years), but here’s the thing: we can use carbon dating on items which also have reliable historical dates from human history! the shells of live freshwater clams have been radiocarbon dated in excess of 1600 years old, clearly showing that the radiocarbon dating technique is not valid. your helioseismic dating claim is not evidence but just an interpretation to fit within the long-age view. for example, after extensive testing over many years, it was concluded that uranium-helium dating is highly unreliable because the small helium atom diffuses easily out of minerals over geologic time. it is used to refine and radiocarbon dating up to that amount of time. results of the manson impact/pierre shale dating study (izett and others 1998) are shown in figure 1. articlesdiamonds: a creationist’s best friendthe fatal flaw with radioactive dating methodshow accurate is carbon-14 (and other radiometric) dating? if radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.
Radioactivity - Is it a problem with radiometric dating that carbon 14 isto the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the earth is millions of years old. some of the decays which are useful for dating, with their half-lives and decay constants are: parent isotope(radioactive)daughter isotope(stable)half-life(gy)decay constant(10-11yr-1) 40k40ar*1. recall that all such dating exercises are driven by the million-year worldview of the researcher. for example, carbon dating can be applied to manuscripts from ancient egypt, and match up with the known dates of those documents. for an example of how it works see the dating game. 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. hyperphysics***** nuclear r nave go back meteorite dating "meteorites, which many consider to be remnants of a disrupted planet that oriaginally formed at about the same time as the earth, have provided uranium-lead and rubidium-strontium ages of about 4. dating tells us that the sun is billions of years old. dating of grand canyon rocks: another devastating failure for long-age geology. scientists who use radiometric dating typically use every means at their disposal to check, recheck, and verify their results, and the more important the results the more they are apt to be checked and rechecked by others. as for me i firmly believe that carbon dating is untrustworthy as their assumptions are laughable. dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life. some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating does not work on theoretical grounds (for example, arndts and overn 1981; gill 1996) but such attempts invariably have fatal flaws (see dalrymple 1984; york and dalrymple 2000). second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (k-ar and 40ar/39ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives.
those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. have explained why there is a coherent story; the final step in the dating methods involves “explain how your results are consistent with all previous work”. carbon dating would be more like a runner running in a straight line. billion years old, by far the oldest ever found on the earth" this dating was done on grains of zircon, a mineral so stable that it can retain its identity through volcanic activity, weathering, and sedimentation."excess argon": the "archilles' heel" of potassium-argon and argon-argon "dating" of volcanic rocks. (lead-208 is the final stable product of the thorium series, so is not used in uranium-lead dating. x 10-10yr-1, but that decay is not used for dating. 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. previous commenters like steve have already pointed out, both evolutionist and creationist scientists aren’t very effective when it comes to dating things. furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the western hemisphere. argument ignores the energy from radioactive decay internal to the planets, and graviatational tidal effects in jupiter’s moons. not only that, they have to show the flaws in those dating studies that provide independent corroborative evidence that radiometric methods work. is no different from the ‘criticism’ you apply to radiometric dating. however, the appendix concludes with this qualification: ‘also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence.
on his return, he sends his sample to the laboratory for dating, and after a few weeks receives the lab report. argument was used against creationist work that exposed problems with radiometric dating. isochron dating, which specifically eliminates the need to know the original ratio of parent and daughter products in a rock. in order to accomplish their goal of discrediting radiometric dating, however, creationists are faced with the daunting task of showing that a preponderance of radiometric ages are wrong — that the methods are untrustworthy most of the time.” the mere use of this phrase implies the lack of understanding of the processes involved when dealing with various methods of direct dating. but they omit discussion of the basic flaw in the method: you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history. isotope(radioactive)daughter isotope(stable)half-life(y)decay constant(10-11yr-1) 10be10b1., carbon dating can be tested against historical artifacts, but we don’t have reliably dated artifacts beyond about 2½ to 3½ thousand years ago. 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. dating is used on organic objects only, so the fact that your whole example is based on inorganic rocks and radio carbon dating only suggests that you do not know with any detail or understanding the topic that you are discussing. radiocarbon dating only can go back 50,000yrs, there are many other dating methods used. gives the impression that radiometric dating is very precise and very reliable—the impression generally held by the public. as i have said in past postings, radiometric dating is supported by multiple measures (multiple times of the same and different elements). and isochron dating does not eliminate the need to know the original ratio.