Could radiometric dating be wrong speed dating knoxville tn
The young-earth creationist belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old massively contradicts the scientific conclusion that it's actually 4.5 billion years old. Imagine, by analogy, that a murder suspect is being questioned by detectives.In order to maintain this belief of theirs, creationists obviously need to call into question the trustworthiness of the dating methods used by scientists to establish the age of the Earth. They say to him: "Look, the surveillance footage clearly shows you stabbing the guy.As you will learn here, none of the arguments or evidence used by creationists to support their position seriously calls into question the reliability of radiometric dating. Not only that, but your DNA was found at the crime scene, 14 witnesses saw you stab him, a text message from your phone reads 'Just stabbed this guy at the gas station, lol,' and you just wrote us a confession letter " "Nope, those are all lies, and I don't trust any of that." This is basically what the young-earth creationist is doing when they carelessly discount all of these independent lines of evidence.In fact, there is a very sound basis for believing that these dating methods provide accurate results. 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. If these dating methods were inaccurate, you would expect to see wildly divergent results, with some techniques yielding one date, other techniques yielding another—it would just be total chaos.These dates are perfectly in line with the dates we saw in the Mount St Helens study; so perhaps the explanation is, yet again, residual equipment contamination, or foreign rock intrusion? I told you this stuff doesn't get you high." No, the only reason it's not getting you high is because you're not using it correctly.
Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years 'old' from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time."Once again, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this discrepancy, and this doesn't justify a wholesale dismissal of radiometric dating. Now you might be saying at this point: If we can't use these dating methods on certain types of rock or animal, it seems to me that they're just not trustworthy.
If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible." I could have said it better. Darlymple.)As we can see here in Table 2 from his paper, the ages arrived at by all of these different dating methods are nearly identical, ranging from 63.7 million years ago to 66.0 million years ago. Think about how stupefyingly unlikely that would be.
Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada.. And yet the results are the same within analytical error.
the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods . Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere.
each involving different elements with different half-lives.