Accuracy of radiometric dating Chat with horney girls no sign up or payment
Geologists know that the dates are not perfect, that's why you will see research articles trying to determine the age of a rock, and there will be ten, twenty, or more samples that were dated.This is to get the average, or, most accurate date possible, within the margin of error that you allow.Unfortunately, these are the ones that the young earth creationist will single out and attack, because of their assumptions that the techniques are perfect.Most geologists understand the dating techniques, and accept their limitations. The author gives a very good description of Carbon-14, except the flood part.For example, the author gives examples of lava flows that were less than 50 years old, but dated radiometrically from 270,000 to 3.5 million years old.After a short argument, the author gives another example, that of lava from the Grand Canyon, giving an error of 270 million years. Geologists say the lava in question is 1.2 million years old..other words, they know when to ignore the radiometric dates. It doesn't mean "all dates are wrong." Remember, context. They claim no source of coal has been found that completely lacks C-14. It is made of carbon...given the amount of carbon in coal, I would expect to see a trace amount of carbon-14 even in samples that are millions of years old.
I can look in my scientific journals and see apparent discrepancies in dating techniques.(Beyond about 60,000 years, the C-14 becomes indistinguishable from the background radiation.) Why was supposed 230 million year old coal dated at 33,720 years? Supposedly, "accompanying checks" showed it was not due to contamination... After all, to say that the lab did not contaminate the specimen proves nothing.You would have to prove it was not contaminated from the moment it was excavated.What we have to decide this issue is the evidence from God's creation, and not our assumptions.