Radiometric dating wrong

When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result.The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems.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.Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant “dates” for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.[7] Also, volcanoes emit much COC.This also has to be corrected for.[2] Second, the ratio of C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible.Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful.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.

radiometric dating wrong-3radiometric dating wrong-87radiometric dating wrong-56

The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the Earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years).

This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years.

Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable C.

Leave a Reply