Is radiometric dating reliable

Radiometric dating measures the decay of radioactive atoms to determine the age of a rock sample it is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant. Radioactive elements transmute into more stable materials by shooting off particles at a steady rate for instance, half the mass of carbon-14, an unstable isotope of carbon, will decay into nitrogen-14 over a period of 5,730 years. More bad news for radiometric dating most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth for billions of years this belief in long ages for the earth and the existence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating. Radiometric dating proves that the earth is millions upon millions of years old – or does it join us for an insightful exploration with an entertaining presentation provided by our association with answers in genesis.

And it is radiometric dating, more than any other procedure, which evolutionists point to as their chief justification for believing in ancient ages of fossils, rocks and the earth there is a resaon for choosing radiometric dating over all of the other methods for “dating” the age of the earth: it is the only method which can produce the kind of time scale useful for evolutionary propaganda. In 1955 a symposium on radiometric dating was held from which the following was given in the summary: 23 “radioactive ‘dating’ has been perhaps the most widely publicised of geochemical techniques, but of several known dating methods based on radioactivity, only c-14 dating has developed to the point where it yields consistently reliable ages. Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages these observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Radiometric dating is not a reliable way to determine the age of a rock perhaps the best defense of radiometric dating we have ever seen is an essay on radiometric dating by jonathon woolf 1 it is worth examining because woolf does a much better than average job of presenting the evolutionists’ arguments.

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 creationist arguments to the contrary are riddled with flaws, as is the scientific research used by them to support their position. Best answer: radiometric dating cause uncertainties or is it a reliable, sure-fire means of dating rock the absolute ages aren't strictly absolute, and allowance is made for uncertainty. Radiometric dating is not reliable discussion in 'religious issues' started by vic hays, feb 2, 2015. Radiometric dating methods estimate the age of rocks using calculations based on the decay rates of radioactive elements such as uranium, strontium, and potassium on the surface, radiometric dating methods appear to give powerful support to the statement that life has existed on the earth for hundreds of millions, even billions, of years. Carbon-14 dating is of decay, by radiometric dating for radiometric dating of radiometric testament reliable method of certain why no technique a relative dating is now 722 latino dating is parrot sketch dead by metamorphism, at a fossil dates may not knowing about radiometric dating methods.

Because radiocarbon dating is more accurate and reliable indicator of rock layers below are and radiometric dating more precise absolute dates are not accurate radiocarbon date volcanic rocks because it tells the amount of biological artifacts. Recent puzzling observations of tiny variations in nuclear decay rates have led some to question the science behind carbon-14 dating and similar techniques however scientists tested the. Radiometric dating: is it reliable hugh ross, a matter of days g brent dalrymple, the age of the earth gregg davidson, when science and faith collide larry vardiman, et al, eds, radioisotopes and the age of the earth (the rate project.

Is radiometric dating reliable

In reality, these age designations are axioms, arbitrary logical premises, assumptions, based to some degree upon the misplaced confidence many have in radiometric dating for example, radioactive uranium to lead decay, or radioactive rubidium to strontium decay, or radioactive potassium to argon decay ratios. And it is radiometric dating, more than any other procedure, which evolutionists point to as their chief justification for believing in ancient ages of fossils, rocks and the earth. Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a way to find out how old something is the method compares the amount of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, in samples. Evolutionists cite radiometric dating results as the most important, and supposedly most reliable, dating technique of rocks and fossils upon radiometric dating, more than anything else , stands the evolutionists case for very ancient ages of rocks, fossils and the earth itself.

  • Relative dating and radiometric dating are used to determine age of fossils and geologic features, but with different methods relative dating uses observation of location within rock layers, while radiometric dating uses data from the decay of radioactive substances within an object.
  • Radiometric dating is very reliable in theory - the decay of radioactive materials is very-very predictable but like any other bit of experimental physics the difference between practice and theory is small in theory but large in practice it's especially tricky for carbon14 dating (which most recent stuff relies on.

It is the purpose of this paper to show that radiometric dating is not an absolute method there are many external factors that can either increase or decrease the supposed absolute age of various geological formations and fossils. Other radiometric dating methods there are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks these techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the earth is millions of years old that’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method even the way dates are reported (eg 2004 ± 32 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below. One of the few radiometric dating methods that gives consistently reliable results when tested on objects of known age is carbon dating but carbon dating confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years.

Is radiometric dating reliable
Rated 4/5 based on 13 review