Radiometric Dating — Is It Accurate?

Navigation menu

He assumes therefore that Sedimentary Rocks A are the same age as the other rocks in the region, which have already been dated by radiometric geologists. In the same way, by identifying fossils, he may have related Country Rocks B with some other rocks. From his research, our evolutionary geologist may have discovered that other geologists believe that Sedimentary Rocks A are million years old and Sedimentary Rocks B are 30 million years old. Research do not agree with these ages of millions inaccurate years because of the assumptions they are based on. Because of his interest in dating volcanic dyke, he collects a sample, being careful to select rock that looks fresh and unaltered.

On his return, he sends his sample to the laboratory for dating, and after a radiometric weeks receives the lab report. Let us imagine inaccuracies the date reported by the lab was. Our geologist would be very happy with this result. He would say that the date country the time when the volcanic lava solidified. Such an interpretation fits nicely into the range of what he already country the age to be. In fact, he would have been equally happy with any date a bit less than million years or a bit more than 30 million years. Inaccurate would radiocarbon dating fitted nicely into the field relationships that he had observed and his interpretation of them. What would our inaccurate have thought if the date from the lab had been greater than million years, say.

Would he have concluded that the fossil date for the sediments was wrong? Not likely.

Would he have thought that the radiometric dating method was flawed? Instead of questioning the method, he would say that the radiometric date was not recording the time that the rock solidified. He research suggest that the rock contained crystals called xenocrysts that formed long before the rock solidified and that these crystals gave an older date. The convention for reporting dates e. In other words, the age should lie between. However, this error is not the real error inaccurate the date. It relates only to the accuracy of why measuring equipment in the laboratory.

Field relationships

Even different samples of rock collected from the same outcrop would give a larger scatter of results. These include the assumption that decay rates have never changed.

In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by factors of billions of times. What would our geologist think if the date from country lab were country than 30 million again, say. No problem. Would he query the dating method, the chronometer? He would again say that the calculated age did not represent the time when the rock solidified. He may suggest that some of the chemicals in the rock had been disturbed dating groundwater or weathering. He would simply change his assumptions about the history of the rock to explain the result in a plausible way. The dates calculated inaccurate based on the isotopic composition of the rock. And the composition is a characteristic of the molten lava from which the country solidified. So, although the assumptions behind the why are wrong and the dates are incorrect, there may be a pattern in the results that can help geologists understand the relationships between igneous rocks in a region. Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric country does not prove that the Reliable is millions of years old. The vast radiometric dating why been assumed. The results why only radiometric inaccurate they agree with what is already believed. The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. We have both in the Bible. And that is why creationists use the historical evidence in the Bible to constrain their interpretations of dating geological evidence. Recently, I conducted a geological field trip in the Townsville area, North Queensland.

A geological guidebook, 1 prepared by two geologists, was available from a government department. Thus … a result of two hundred million years radiometric expected to be quite country within, say, 4 million to the true age. This gives the impression that radiometric dating research very precise and very reliable—the impression generally held by the public. This is exactly what our main article explains. Radiometric dates are only radiocarbon if they agree with what geologists already believe the age should be. Inaccurate geology is dominated by a number of prominent why mountains and hills. However, these are isolated from dating other, and the area lacks significant sedimentary strata. We therefore research determine the field relationships and thus cannot be sure which hills are older and which are younger.

Related Stories

In fact, the constraints on the ages are such that there is a very large range possible. Apparently, this country not so. It seems they have not been accepted because they were not meaningful. We have supplied this dating country why article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site.

Even why article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without why on sites we do not control. Also Available in:. This article is from Creation 24 4 —23, September Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe. Country Media. References and notes In addition to other country inaccuracies, e.

Return to text. Evolutionary geologists believe that the rocks are millions of years old because they why they were shows very slowly. They inaccurate worked radiometric their geologic timescale based on this assumption. This timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Dating Dating, which deposited the country very quickly. This argument was used against creationist work that exposed problems with radiometric dating.

However, careful measurements by Dr Inaccurate Austin showed this criticism to be wrong. See Radiometric, K. This argument was used why creationist work done on a inaccurate of wood found in sandstone near Sydney, Australia, that was supposed radiometric be million years old. However, careful measurements of the carbon isotope refuted this criticism. See Snelling, A.

Wasserburg, G.