About radiometric dating

14-Jan-2018 20:08

These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates.

These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains.

For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc.

Overall, the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more C is being produced now than in the past.

This will make old things look older than they really are.

To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as: There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older “ages.” Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years.

Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.

about radiometric dating-19

carbon dating wine

A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the Earth.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.