Radiometric Dating: Back to Basics (does it really prove the Earth is millions of years old?)

Answers Magazine ^ | June 17, 2009 | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.

Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact.

Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions. So let’s take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method really is...

[GodGunsGuts]

This is PART ONE in a three part series. Stay tuned for parts two and three!!!

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[KevinDavis]

I do need a good laugh..

[the long march]

All of metrology uses certain assumptions. It is a field bound by limitations on methodolgy and accuracy. When used as a tool to “prove” something it will frequently be misused. Fact is the data are the data ——interpretation is everything

[xcamel]

As soon as you show us **exactly**, with verified peer-reviewed physical evidence, where on planet earth is (or was).

[blowfish]

Thanks for the daily laugh!
And I assume, of course, that you don’t have a smoke detector in your house. Who would trust their well being to the flaky, unpredictable nature of radioactive decay?

[CottShop]

Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm

Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html

Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops

Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html

Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm

Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm

Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/

Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html

Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties

Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp

Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm

Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio

Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating

why it’s wrong:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059

RaDio helio dating disproves:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/369
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/
http://www.rae.org/

[tacticalogic]

But what if the assumptions are wrong? For example, what if radioactive material was added to the top bowl or if the decay rate has changed?

When discussing evolution, they argue that speciation cannot be assumed because no one has ever verified that change happened.

When discussing radiometrics they argue that decay rates cannot be assumed to be constant because no can verify that change has not happened.

[Buck W.]

Can’t wait—this will be amusing. Can you post the bibliography that the author has provided so we can do some advance reading?

The entire series has been peer reviewed, right?

[mnehring]

I love an article which through 90% of the content, proves it works, then in the last 10%, the entire argument is ..but what if..

I would like to see the what if held up to the same observation and testing standards.

[GodGunsGuts]

Thanks for the additional links, CottShop!

[El Sordo]

But it’s such an awesome plot device!

[Buck W.]

“I would like to see the what if held up to the same observation and testing standards.”

It is—none.

[aruanan]

The entire series has been peer reviewed, right?

Most of the greatest achievements of science took place before what we call today peer review.

[tacticalogic]

My son is a Nuke on a US Navy submarine. If the decay rate of the uranium in it’s reactor core ever changes significantly he’s dead meat. If it slows down, they’re left without power. If it speeds up it will melt the containment. Should I tell him to get the hell off that boat?

[editor-surveyor]

Radiometric dating is geological Cachexia.

[Westbrook]

> The entire series has been peer reviewed, right?

Do you mean like Global Warming and Piltdown Man?

[blowfish]

No, because radioactive decay can only change when it is required to bolster a theological argument.

[alexander_busek]

[...] So let’s take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method is [...]

To begin with, radiometric dating isn't as a method - rather, it's a whole slew of methods, which in many cases can be used to corroborate each other. (E.g. the obsidian hydration analysis of a stone tool might comport well with the Carbon-14 dating of the wooden heft the obsidian was attached to.

Secondly, some of the techniques referred to here (dendrochronology, etc.) are NOT radiometric in nature, but rather are based upon entirely different principles.

Regards,

[agere_contra]

The Earth is Billions of years old.