Debate: Radiometric Dating is Accurate | n3ws.info
Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that .. What radiometric dating needs to do to show its reliability is to demonstrate that. The actual accuracy of radiometric dating is about 2%, but there is no point in splitting . Given the supposed antiquity of these diamonds, and their source deep. Radiometric dating is a technique used to date materials using known decay Are radiometric dating methods accurate? More Resources.
Some scientists argue that the magnetic field of the earth has declined over time. Carbon comes from nitrogen and is independent of the carbon reservoir. If even a small percentage of the limestone deposits were still in the form of living marine organisms at the time of the Flood, then the small amount of carbon would have mixed with a much larger carbon reservoir, thus resulting in a drastically reduced ratio.
Specimens would then look much older than they actually are. Clock Reset It's assumed that the clock was set to zero when the study material was formed.
This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted. Many examples from literature show that the zero-reset assumption is not always valid.
Volcanic ejecta of Mount Rangitoto Auckland, New Zealand was found to have a potassium age ofyears, yet trees buried within the volcanic material were dated with the carbon method to be less than years old. If dated with the carbon method, the flow appears to be less than 17, years old, but dating with the potassium argon method gives dates ofto 43 million years.
A rock sample from Nigeria was dated at 95 million years by the potassium-argon method, million years by the uranium-helium method, and less than 30 million years by the fission-track method. The diamonds came from underground mines where contamination would be minimal.
However, diamonds are the hardest natural mineral and extremely resistant to contamination. These diamonds are considered to be billion years old according to uniformitarian geologists, so they should have been radiocarbon-dead. Nevertheless, they still contained significant levels of C Given the supposed antiquity of these diamonds, and their source deep inside the earth, one possible explanation for these detectable C levels is that the C is primordial.
However, if this were the case, the apparent "age" of the earth itself would only be about 45, years old according to my opponent!
1. Rate of Decay
The presence of detectable C in fossils, which according to the uniformitarian timescale should be entirely Cdead, has been reported from the earliest days of radiocarbon dating. For example, a published survey on all the dates reported in the journal "Radiocarbon" up to commented that for more than 15, samples reported: This data shows that radiometric dating is unreliable and questionable at best.
I have many more examples to share, but space does not permit. I will elaborate in further rounds and I hope to address Pros assertion that independent dating methods correlate with the radiometric dates. Although, by showing that radiometric dating is unreliable on its own terms, any perceived correlation with independent dating methods means absolutely nothing.
My sources are in the comment section. Con has only provided evidence that argon dating has some undefined error in some cases, and that a few cases of carbon dating are in error. He offers some unrefereed papers by avowed creation scientists that there are broader problems, but even in those claims, there is nothing that questions the overall statistical accuracy. The arguments are akin to claiming that a wristwatch cannot be used to measure time, because sometimes the battery fails or the display is misread.
Errors do happen, but they are well within the claimed error bounds and they are limited by cross-checking. With a wristwatch you check with a different clock, with radiometric dating the checks are with different dating methods and different isotope pairs. Con claims that we cannot know with certainty what the composition of an original sample was. Absolute certainty is not required. Assumptions are made based upon observations. The reliability of the assumptions is ultimately tested by crosschecking to independent dating methods.
Radiometric dating is known to be accurate not because it is assumed to accurate, but rather by cross-checking and proving it is accurate. Con is correct that rock samples selected for argon dating cannot have been exposed to air. That is true not only for recent volcanic flows, but with old rocks have fissures allowing air intrusions. One technique is to rely on feldspars formed only at very high temperatures. The error due to air exposure always makes the sample appear younger than it really is.
Different grains of rock from the same location may have different exposures to the air due to the pattern of fissures, so a cross-check is to test several samples to ensure a reliable result.
In the opening round, I made the caveat that the methods are only accurate when properly applied. There are also a dozen isotope pairs that cross-check argon dating. The reliability of the dating is further enhanced by cross-checking in the same sample. Snelling as to the general unreliability of argon dating.How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 17 Radiometric Dating
The article cited is in a religious journal, not in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Snelling is a legitimate scientist who also publishes in peer-reviewed journals. However, he writes in the scientific literature he accepts the accuracy of the standard scientific dating methods. When he writes for his religious audience he denies them. If he had data that would withstand scientific scrutiny, he would publish it in scientific journals. Clearly he does not. Con points out the problem with carbon dating of coal and diamonds.
The problem is well known. Coal contains radioactive thorium, and the thorium creates C14 in situ. As a known limitation, it is not particularly troublesome. It is comparable to knowing that a wristwatch won't work properly in high magnetic fields; once one is aware of that, it is readily avoided. Con claims that there is some general problem with the accuracy of carbon dating for dates after BC.
Con quotes Whitelaw, a creationist published by a religious press, not by a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Whitelaw supposes that there was no C14 in the atmosphere more than years ago, so when he scales all the dates according to his theory they are all within 50, years. Aside from the theory having no scientific foundation, it is contradicted by all the dating methods that cross-reference carbon dating.
One must suppose that trees grew exponentially slower in the past, and so forth, to produce exactly the same errors as the error he supposes. Con cites Bowman, a scientist who vigorous supports the accuracy of carbon dating. The British Museum lab doing carbon dating made some errors during the period from Bowman discovered and corrected the errors.
There was no general problem with radiocarbon dating. In the book by Bowman cited by Con, Bowman writes of errors less than 50 years as relatively easy to achieve, and less than 20 years possible with great care. That was written in Throughout, Con has refused to confront the central proof that radiometric dating is accurate. That proof is that the dates arrived by radiometry are verified by dendrochronology tree ringsvarve chronology sediment layersice cores, coral banding, speleotherms cave formationsfission track dating, and electron spin resonance dating.
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
The dates are also verified by independent measurements from other isotope pairs. In R1 I presented the challenge to him, "Anyone questioning the accuracy of radiometric methods is obliged to explain why the cross-checks to sediments, coral growth, tree rings, and other isotope pairs all have the same errors. Suppose we suspect that Cousin Lenny's watch is in error. How do we verify it? We check it against other clocks. If the other clocks say it is 3 o'clock and Lenny says it is 3: It is theoretically possible that all the other clocks are wrong and have exactly the same error, but it would take a whole lot of explaining as to how that could be the case.
Con's problem is that all the reasonable scientific comparisons verify that radiometric dating has the accuracy claimed. All Con has done is cite a few limitations on some of the specific methods.
It's true that argon dating cannot be used on samples exposed to air. It's true that carbon dating doesn't work on coal that is loaded with radioactive thorium. Scientists are trained to discover such problems and to avoid them.
There are analogous problems with applying virtually any measurement technique. We can list pitfalls with using clocks or micrometers or scales or anything else that measures. That is not at issue. The question is what accuracy is achieved despite all the potential problems. Report this Argument Con Again, I would like to think Pro for the opportunity to debate this and for his alacritous response.
First, I would like to point out some errors my opponent made in his last response. He stated, "Con is correct that rock samples selected for argon dating cannot have been exposed to air.
I said there was "excess argon. However, the samples still came back with unacceptable ages. Therefore, the excess argon must have come from some other source. The mantle has been suggested. So there is risk of contamination not just from air, but from some other source. Pro also posited that "The error due to air exposure always makes the sample appear younger than it really is. A less than 10 year old sample should have no measurable Ar. Pro also resorted to special pleading when he said I sourced a "religious" journal.
In fact, it was a scientific journal, but because it supports creationism he immediately rejects it as "religious" instead of trying to actually refute it based on scientific data.
Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)
I can as easily say talkorigins. Pro also questions A. All Snelling is doing is using language in which that particular audience would understand. The conventional geological community has named the different rock units in the rock record. So if Snelling is going to discuss the chalk beds in the cretaceous rock unit he will say "cretaceous" so his peers know what he is talking about.
It doesn't mean he accepts the ages that geologists have imposed on it. If I am going to go on a business trip to Japan I might do well to speak Japanese. Furthermore, Pro cites my sources incorrectly. Whitelaw was not the one who said the samples dated within 50, years. Whitelaw was quoting the journal "Radiocarbon. There are no reliable sources that back up that claim.
Even the article he sourced, which was merely a email sent to talkorigins, says "it looks like in-situ production of new 14C is the best-supported hypothesis; but research is ongoing However, the answer to the detection of C in diamonds fits a young earth hypothesis just as good, if not better, than Th creating C which is lacking in evidence. Furthermore, U and Th decay does create Helium.
He is the second lightest element and diffuses out of minerals and rocks quickly. They have measured He diffusion rates from Zircons that are supposedly 1. It seems not all dating methods cross-check each other as my opponent asserts. So why do some independent dating methods appear to match? The simple answer is they don't. The conventional geological community has the presupposition that the earth is billions of years old. So when they date a rock layer with any radiometric dating method that doesn't match the "expected" age they already had for the rock layer they throw it out and keep dating until they get the results they wanted.
It has been admitted as such: If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote, and if it is completely out of date we just drop it" T. True, this quote is frombut why should we believe scientists are any different today?
The only way scientists know radiometric dating results are incorrect is because they already had preconceived ideas of the what the age of a rock was.
It is the relentless application of uniformitarianism that creates these perceived matches with independent dating methods.
It is assumed that tree rings form one a year, but it is actually well known that tree rings can form several in one year depending on the climate the tree is growing in http: If we eliminate the uniformitarian philosophy we can see that it makes the assumption of tree rings difficult to prove.
Furthermore, the oldest tree, appropriately nicknamed Methuselah, is only years old according to conventional dating http: The team reasoned that if neutrinos are affecting the decay rate, the atoms in the spheres should decay more slowly than the atoms in the foil because the neutrinos emitted by the atoms in the spheres would have a greater chance of interacting with their neighboring atoms.
The maximum neutrino flux in the sample in their experiments was several times greater than the flux of neutrinos from the sun. The researchers followed the gamma-ray emission rate of each source for several weeks and found no difference between the decay rate of the spheres and the corresponding foils. According to NIST scientist emeritus Richard Lindstrom, the variations observed in other experiments may have been due to environmental conditions interfering with the instruments themselves.
Radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation: Study of the dependence of Au half-life on source geometry.