Radiometric dating is not accurate

Both of these are divided or normalized by a stable isotope of the same elements as the daughter element.So on the x-axis, we have parent/(another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter) and on the y-axis we have daughter/(another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter).This serves as strong evidence for the reliability of radiometric dating methods. These isotopes differ in the number of neutrons they have in their nuclei.Those isotopes that are not stable decay into daughter nuclei.But what about assuming that initial amounts are known?A second property of isochron diagrams is that it actually gives the initial amount of daughter isotope as a result of the method. At this intersect, the ratio of parent/(another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter) is by definition 0 and so no amount of the daughter here is produced by decay of the parent in the rock.The initial conditions are just read off the graph; it is not just assumed.In a last ditch effort, young earth creationists exclaim that scientists just assume, without warrant, that decay rate are constant. Decay rates have been shown to be constant, despite very high pressure and temperature.

radiometric dating is not accurate-55radiometric dating is not accurate-57radiometric dating is not accurate-75

Also, different radiometric dating techniques independently converges with each other and with other dating techniques such as dendrochronology, layers in sediment, growth rings on corals, rhythmic layering of ice in glaciers, magnetostratigraphy, fission tracks and many other methods. There exists different versions, or isotopes of many elements.

Let us critically examine each of these claims and see if they hold up against the science.

While doing so, we will have to learn about how radiometric dating works.

That is, you can see if the sample comes from rocks that have been disturbed (or contaminated) or not just by looking at the results.

Now, creationists will claim that scientists are just somehow assuming that if samples show an age that does not fit their preconceptions, the sample must be contaminated or leaky. To see why, we need to look deeper into radiometric dating methods.

Leave a Reply