Radioactive dating flaws
If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible." I could have said it better. Darlymple.)As we can see here in Table 2 from his paper, the ages arrived at by all of these different dating methods are nearly identical, ranging from 63.7 million years ago to 66.0 million years ago. Think about how stupefyingly unlikely that would be.
Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada.. And yet the results are the same within analytical error.
I always find it amusing when ignorant laymen try to lecture scientists about .
I'm reminded of a recent episode of Star Talk where they had a climatologist on as a guest.
As you will learn here, none of the arguments or evidence used by creationists to support their position seriously calls into question the reliability of radiometric dating. Not only that, but your DNA was found at the crime scene, 14 witnesses saw you stab him, a text message from your phone reads 'Just stabbed this guy at the gas station, lol,' and you just wrote us a confession letter " "Nope, those are all lies, and I don't trust any of that." This is basically what the young-earth creationist is doing when they carelessly discount all of these independent lines of evidence.
When multiple, independent lines of evidence arrive at the exact same conclusion, that is a very strong indicator that the conclusion is valid. This is extremely powerful verification of the validity of both the theory and practice of radiometric dating. No, nobody knows more about potential sources of error in radiometric dating than the people who regularly use these dating methods.Perhaps he's just too busy polluting the internet with his mental diarrhea to do a bit of research and reading?—Arguably the magnum opus of creationist efforts to refute radiometric dating is what's known as the RATE project, short for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.During his lecture, he shows this slide which features five examples of the known ages of rocks not matching up with the dated ages of rocks.Notice that four of the examples show a radiometric age of less than half a million years with the fifth example showing an age of about 1.5 million years. they take 27 samples from a formation that they know in advance will give them bad dates." we couldn't trust these dating techniques." This would be like taking a bag of marijuana, rubbing some of it on your skin, and being like: "See, dude?
This doesn't therefore make these tools completely worthless; it just means that sometimes, they get it wrong—but when properly applied, the techniques will give us the correct answer the vast majority of the time.—The next example is much more tantalizing because it purportedly shows two wildly divergent dates One problem with this quote: It doesn't appear to actually exist—much like God, I might add! Secondly, none of the radiocarbon dates for mammoths given in that table are 44,000 or 29,500. One is referred to as a baby mammoth, while the other is simply referred to as a mammoth; one is described as being potentially contaminated by glycerine, while the other is not.