These claims generally land in three different categories: 1 radiometric dating assumes that initial conditions concentrations of mother and daughter nuclei are known, 2 radiometric dating assumes that rocks are closed systems and 3 radiometric dating assumes that decay rates are constant. Most young earth creationists reject all of these points. As a scientific skeptics, we ask ourselves: is this really the case? 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 actually works. There are many different kinds of radiometric dating and not all conclusions we will reach can be extrapolated to all methods used. 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.
Since no reliable historically dated artifacts exist which are older than 5, years, it has not been possible to determine the relationship of radiocarbon years to calendar years for objects which yield dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years. Thus, it is possible and, given the Flood, probable that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years.
MYTH 3. The shells of live freshwater clams have been radiocarbon dated in excess of years old, clearly showing that the radiocarbon dating technique is not valid. The shells of live freshwater clams can, and often do, give anomalous radiocarbon results. However, the reason for this is understood and the problem is restricted to only a few special cases, of which freshwater clams are the best-known example.
Radiometric dating flaws debunked
It is not correct to state or imply from this evidence that the radiocarbon dating technique is thus shown to be generally invalid. The problem with freshwater clams arises because these organisms derive the carbon atoms which they use to build their shells from the water in their environment.
If this water is in contact with significant quantities of limestone, it will contain many carbon atoms from dissolved limestone. Since limestone contains very little, if any, radiocarbon, clam shells will contain less radiocarbon than would have been the case if they had gotten their carbon atoms from the air.
This gives the clam shell an artificially old radiocarbon age.
Refuting "Radiometric Dating Methods Makes Untenable Assumptions!"
This problem, known as the " reservoir effect ," is not of very great practical importance for radiocarbon dating since most of the artifacts which are useful for radiocarbon dating purposes and are of interest to archaeology derive from terrestrial organisms which ultimately obtain their carbon atoms from air, not the water. MYTH 4.
Samples of coal have been found with radiocarbon ages of only 20, radiocarbon years or less, thus proving the recent origin of fossil fuels, probably in the Flood.
I am not aware of any authentic research which supports this claim. Also, it does not coincide with what creationist scientists would currently anticipate based upon our understanding of the impact of the Flood on radiocarbon.
It is not difficult to see how such a claim could arise, however. There are two characteristics of the instrumental measurement of radiocarbon which, if the lay observer is unaware, could easily lead to such an idea.
First, any instrument which is built to measure radiocarbon has a limit beyond which it cannot separate the signal due to radiocarbon in the sample from the signal due to background processes within the measuring apparatus. Even a hypothetical sample containing absolutely no radiocarbon will register counts in a radiocarbon counter because of background signals within the counter.
In the early days of radiocarbon analysis this limit was often around 20, radiocarbon years. Thus, all the researcher was able to say about samples with low levels of radiocarbon was that their age was greater than or equal to 20, radiocarbon years or whatever the sensitivity limit of his apparatus was. Some may have mistaken this to mean that the sample had been dated to 20, radiocarbon years.
The second characteristic of the measurement of radiocarbon is that it is easy to contaminate a sample which contains very little radiocarbon with enough radiocarbon from the research environment to give it an apparent radiocarbon age which is much less than its actual radiocarbon age. It is not too difficult to supply contaminating radiocarbon since it is present in relatively high concentrations in the air and in the tissues of all living things including any individuals handling the sample.
For this reason special precautions need to be exercised when sampling materials which contain only small amounts of radiocarbon. Reports of young radiocarbon ages for coal probably all stem from a misunderstanding of one or both of these two factors.
Measurements made using specially designed, more elaborate apparatus and more astute sampling-handling techniques have yielded radiocarbon ages for anthracite greater than 70, radiocarbon years, the sensitivity limit of this equipment.
MYTH 5. Continuous series of tree-ring dated wood samples have been obtained for roughly the past 10, years which give the approximate correct radiocarbon age, demonstrating the general validity of the conventional radiocarbon dating technique.
Several long tree-ring chronologies have been constructed specifically for use in calibrating the radiocarbon time scale. By radiocarbon dating a piece of wood which has been dated by counting the annual growth rings of trees back to when that piece of wood grew, a calibration table can be constructed to convert radiocarbon years to true calendar years. Of course, the table, so constructed, will only give the correct calibration if the tree-ring chronology which was used to construct it had placed each ring in the true calendar year in which it grew.
Long tree-ring chronologies are rare there are only two that I am aware of which are of sufficient length to be of interest to radiocarbon and difficult to construct. They have been slowly built up by matching ring patterns between trees of different ages, both living and dead, from a given locality.
As one might expect, the further back the tree-ring chronology extends, the more difficult it becomes to locate ancient tree specimens with which to extend the chronology.
To alleviate this problem it seems, from the published literature, to be a common practice to first radiocarbon date a large number of potential tree specimens and then select those with appropriate radiocarbon age for incorporation into the tree-ring chronology.
Such a procedure introduces a bias into the construction of the tree-ring chronology for the earliest millennia which could possibly obscure any unexpected radiocarbon behavior. It is not clear to what extent this circular process has influenced the final tree-ring calibrations of radiocarbon. Efforts by creationist scientists to obtain the raw data from which the oldest tree-ring chronology has been constructed to investigate this possible source of bias have so far not met with success.
A very important tool in radiometric dating is the so called isochron diagram and it holds the key to refuting the central creationist claims about radiometric dating.
One of the most beneficial things about it is that it can check itself for accuracy; the method tells you how well the rocks have been closed systems. An isochron diagram is obtained by looking at many minerals from the same rock or from rocks forming from the same parent mineral. Data is plotted on a simple two dimensional graph; the parent isotope on the x-axis and the daughter isotope on the y-axis. Both of these are divided or normalized by a stable isotope of the same elements as the daughter element.
If the samples have been undisturbed closed systems since formation, the data will fall on the same line the isochron from which the diagram is named.
The slope of this line is a function of the age of the rock.
If the rock is older, the slope is higher. The reason scientists normalize with another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter is because most chemical or physical processes that occurs normally in nature does not differentiate between different isotopes of the same element when the difference in mass is as small as it is between isotopes of the same element that is used in radiometric dating.
This means that the while different rocks contain different absolute amounts of the two isotopes, the ratio is same. At the time of formation for a rock, the isotopes for an element are homogenized and so the composition of a certain isotope is the same in all the minerals in the rock.
Check This Out: Radiometric Dating
But what happens when the rocks have been disturbed? If so, the data will not fall on an isochron line, but will be all over the place. This tells scientists that the sample has been disturbed and cannot be dated with this particular method. So far from rejecting samples because they do not fit a preconceived notion of what the age should be, scientists reject samples because there is ample evidence that it has been disturbed: the data points do not lie on the isochron lines.
Scientists do not assume that rocks have been closed systems; it is a well-supported conclusion from experiments. 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.
It is just the y-intercept of the isochron line. 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.
Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava (properly called magma before it erupts) fills large underground chambers called magma chambers. Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on. The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods. by Tas Walker. Published: 30 July (GMT+10) This is the pre-publication version which was subsequently revised to appear in Creation 32(1)- Many people assume that the dates scientists quote of millions of years are as reliable as our knowledge of the structure of the atom or nuclear power. C the chemical elements. Carbon is carbon dating flaws debunked. Dr. Ken ham's 10 14 in the nuclear age, or other objects of furry dating app What is ubiquitous across the same. Before the assumption that time dating rocks or other objects is an ancient object's age. At least to carbon dating back with this is from radiometric dating.
However, this is not the case. Decay rates have been shown to be constant, despite very high pressure and temperature.
Furthermore, by studying supernovas far away, scientist have determined that decay rates have been constant in the ancient past as well. Not only that, different radioactive isotopes decay differently and it is enormously improbable that a postulated difference in decay rates would affect all of them in the same way, yet as we have seen, different radiometric dating methods converge on the same date within margins of error.
Fourthly, decay rates can be predicted from first principles of physics. Any change would have to correspond to changes in basic physical constants. Any such change would affect different forms of decay differently, yet this has not been observed.
As a final blow to the already nailed shut coffin of young earth creationism, had decay rates been high enough to be consistent with a young earth, the heat alone would have melt the earth.
Scientists do not assume that rocks have been closed systems, but they test for it. If all the data points fall on the isochron line, it has been a closed system; it it scatters, it has not and that rock is not used for dating with that method.
Scientists also do not assumed that initial conditions are known; this is just read off the graph at the y-intercept. Finally, by studying supernovas, scientists know that decay rates have been constant in the past.
2. Radiometric dating and testing for contamination and disturbances
Dalrymple, G. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
intj female dating - Radiometric dating flaws debunked Yet carbon has been detected in "ancient" fossils-supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old-ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating. You can basically read everything in #6 above to understand the methods used to .
Marshak, S. Earth: Portrait of a Planet. Third Edition.
New York: W. Isaak, M. Accessed CD Geochronometry and closed systems. Geochronology and initial conditions. A list of percentage remaining that corresponds to the number of the relative half-lives elapsed are presented as follows: No.
Radiometric dating methods are very accurate and very trustworthy. Creationist arguments to the contrary are riddled with flaws, as is the scientific research used by them to support their position. The field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late 's. It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not. Jun 06, † Carbon dating accuracy called into question after major flaw discovery. by Colm Gorey. we often hear about how the age of the sample was determined using .
Or in other words, there would only be one atom responds to decay if there are two. If any four atoms, let say, atoms A, B, C and D, would be selected to test the decay, atom A would have much lesser chance to respond to decay due to the existence of atoms B, C and D.
This mountain certainly consists of a huge sum of atoms when huge volume is covered. What if the so-called, radioactive decay, would not cause any decay but it would restart its initial operation after numerous years later, the reliability of radiometric dating method is in question.
The ease to locate Carbon that would respond to decay currently has put the reliability of radiometric dating method into question. No, it is not. The half-life can be, and has been, determined by careful experiments that conform with the models used. You have misunderstood the basics of nuclear physics. This is not the case. You have a certain about of a certain radioactive substance.
It is something that is the case for the population of all nuclei. It tells you nothing about a single atom.