Problems with radiometric dating methods new online dating and match making sites
The bottom line is that there are only two ways to verify whether or not radiometric dating methods have any credibility at all. To compare the results with known dates based on historical and/or archeological data, 2. * The depth here refers to the depth below the surface of the water, since this volcano produced a lava flow that flowed down the mountain and into the ocean.* Notes: Where abbreviations are used: b. * Cubic Diamonds from Zaire were included because the "age" derived from them is greater than the purported (4.5 b.y.) age of the earth.
To cross-check the results with one or more different methods of radiometric dating. I now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found. 479-480; Note: Though the age calculation (for sample No.
They consist of measuring the amount of radioactive (mother) element and comparing it to the amount of stable (daughter) element. Uranium is radioactive, which means it is in the process of changing from an unstable element into a stable one. And after 9 billion years there would be 75% lead and 25% uranium, and so on. (an) episode of drastically accelerated decay has ... When the crystal is looked at under a microscope, these discolourations appear as dark ringshence the name "pleochroic halo".
Few people realize it but all radiometric dating methods require making at least three assumptions. Now the magnitude of the radius of a pleochroic halo in a particular mineral depends on the amount of energy that the alpha particle has ... depends on the half-life of the particular decay responsible for this alpha particle emission.
With the exception of Carbon-14, radiometric dating is used to date either igneous or metamorphic rocks that contain radioactive elements such as uranium. Now when the uranium or thorium disintegrates, the alpha particles which are emitted are slowed down by the crystals in which the grains of the uranium- or thorium-bearing minerals are embedded.
And even though various radioactive elements have been used to "date" these rocks, for the most part, the methods are basically the same. This means that if you had some pure uranium-238 with no lead in it, 4.5 billion years later one half of it would have decayed into its stable daughter product (lead-206). Where these alpha particles finally stop, crystal deformation occurs (and) shows up as a discolouration or a darkening of the crystals.
Although these eruptions were less than 200 years old, the radiometric "dates" obtained from them were 140 million to 2.96 billion years for one, and from 0 to 29 million years for the other -- depending upon the (ocean) depth at which the lava sample was obtained. This also brings up an important question: If radiometric dating methods are unable to produce the correct date in cases where the actual date of eruption is known, why should we believe that these same methods can produce accurate dates when the date of eruption is unknown?
The point is simply this: radiometric dating is known to produce grossly erroneous dates when heat is involved in the formation or fossilization process.
(the same) size, then it can be safely assumed that the half-life of that decay is a constant.
The only dating methods discussed (over and over) by evolution-believing scientists and the mass media are those that supposedly "prove" that the earth is billions of years old.
One of the most popular of these is known as radiometric dating. can be In other words, something in the past caused a significant amount of helium to build up inside these zircons (such as from a rapid decay episode of uranium), yet, in spite of the fact that helium has been observed to leak out readily from these zircons, it has not done so: simply because it hasn't had enough time to do so -- suggesting that the zircons themselves are only a few thousand years old."There is evidence to show ...
This is because "common" lead contains both radiogenic (lead 206, 207 and 208) and non-radiogenic lead (204) but it does not contain any uranium.
In fact, about 98% of common lead is "radiogenic" (containing lead 206, 207, 208) and only 2% non-radiogenic.However, not as well known is the fact that such methods have serious flaws which are often glossed over, or ignored when writing on, or discussing this subject in public. that (the) half-lives (of uranium-thorium-lead) are not constant but vary with time. comes from the study of pleochroic haloes which form in a rock in the following way.