Use of different dating methods on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results.

Christian response to radiometric datingradioactive dating methodsgeological conflictthe dating gamehow dating methods workradiometric dating and the age of the earthplumbing and paradigmsresponse to geochronology: understanding the uncertainties, a presentation by dr justin paynemore on radioactive dating problemsdating in conflictradiometric backflipradioactive dating failureradioisotope methods and rock agesfurther readingradiometric dating questions and answersrelated mediahow dating methods workradioisotope datingan evolutionist's best friend?

.Single crystal fusion: also called single crystal argon or argon-argon (ar-ar) dating, this method is a refinement of an older approach known as potassium-argon (k-ar) dating, which is still sometimes used.

In fact, the constraints on the ages are such that there is a very large range possible.

Carbon-14 dating cannot be used to date anything older than about 50,000 years, since the carbon-14 half life is only 5730 years.

So, although the assumptions behind the calculation 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.

Henry morris as follows:index fossils are types of fossil (such as ammonites and coelacanths) that 19th century european evolutionists of the victorian era claimed lived and died out many millions of years ago.

This rules out carbon dating for most aquatic organisms, because they often obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved carbonate rock.

This is certainly true when errors are in the range of a few percent in specimens many millions of years old.

#### How many radiometric dating methods are there

### How Does Radiocarbon Dating Work? - Instant Egghead #28

Unlike observation-based relative dating, most absolute methods require some of the find to be destroyed by heat or other means.

Overall reliability of radiometric dating was addressed in some detail in a recent book by brent dalrymple, a premier expert in the field.

A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger.

: there are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample.

All relativedeborah mccague/shutterstockbefore more precise absolute dating tools were possible, researchers used a variety of comparative approaches called relative dating.

Therefore, rocks in the same area which give similar dates are likely to have formed from the same lava at about the same time during the flood.

, archaeologyrehtse_c/shutterstockwhen it comes to determining the age of stuff scientists dig out of the ground, whether fossil or artifact, there are good dates and bad dates and ugly dates, says paleoanthropologist john shea of stony brook university.

The fact that dating techniques most often agree with each other is why scientists tend to trust them in the first place.

The fact remains that every living organism appears abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed without the transitional fossils that should be there if darwinian evolution is true.

#### How many different types of radiometric dating are there

### Radiometric Dating

**radiometric dating**. Full article and more videos- ...

Now have so many things that can make radiometric dating go wrong,And isochrons don't remedy the situation at all, that i think the.

: one of the first and most basic scientific dating methods is also one of the easiest to understand.

Would expect that radiometric dating, being allegedly so accurate, would rescue the situation and provide exact ages for each of these hills.

These artifacts have gone through many carbon-14 half-lives, and the amount of carbon-14 remaining in them is miniscule and very difficult to detect.

Articlesdiamonds: a creationists best friendthe fatal flaw with radioactive dating methodshow accurate is carbon-14 (and other radiometric) dating?

Dating cannot be used on most fossils, not only because they are almost always allegedly too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism that has been fossilized.

Of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time.

This line, roger wiens, a scientist at the los alamos national laboratory, asks those who are skeptical of radiometric dating to consider the following (quoted in several cases from [wiens2002]):There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.

In practice, geologists carefully select what rocks they will date, and have many explanations for discordant dates, so it's not clear how such a study could be done, but it might be a good project for creationists.

### Creation v. Evolution: How Carbon Dating Works

But unlike radiocarbon dating, the older the sample, the more accurate the dating researchers typically use these methods on finds at least 500,000 years old.

When scientists first began to compare carbon dating data to data from tree rings, they found carbon dating provided "too-young" estimates of artifact age.

As we pointed out in these two articles, radiometric dates are based on known rates of radioactivity, a phenomenon that is rooted in fundamental laws of physics and follows simple mathematical formulas.

Reading this article i could not help but think of the scientists who use this dating method to confirm their already held beliefs are like marksmen archers who shoot an arrow then go paint the bulls eye around it.

Dating, like any other experimental discipline, is subject to a variety of errors, ranging from human errors to rare anomalies resulting from highly unusual natural circumstances.

Indeed, there is no known physical phenomenon that can yield consistent results in many thousands of measurements, year after year, except one: that these specimens really are as old as the data shows them to be.

Charge datingbroskoover time, certain kinds of rocks and organic material, such as coral and teeth, are very good at trapping electrons from sunlight and cosmic rays pummeling earth.

Any event, there is a simple way to see that the earth must be at least 1.

Here are some of the most common radiometric methods:Radiocarbon dating: sometimes called carbon-14 dating, this method works on organic material.

### 99. Creation Magazine Live! TV: "Radiometric back flipsâ€“How solid are those dates?" (Complete) PBMC

**dating methods**confirm the geologic time-scale and the ...

Dating schemes based on rates of radioactivity have been refined and scrutinized for several decades.

Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths.

. the global flood of 2,348 bc) as global catastrophes reset all the radiometric/atomic clocks by invalidating the evolutionists main dating assumption that there have never been any global catastrophes.

Here is a condensed summary of these items, quoted from wiens' article [wiens2002]:Claim: radiometric dating is based on index fossils whose dates were assigned long before radioactivity was discovered.

These methods some of which are still used today provide only an approximate spot within.

It also says that the actual ages are measured by radiometric datingan expensive technique performed in modern laboratories.

While there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, e.

We can see that many varieties of minerals are produced from the same magma by the different processes of crystallization, and these different minerals may have very different compositions.

This human nuclear activity will make precise dating of fossils from our lifetime very difficult due to contamination of the normal radioisotope composition of the earth with addition artificially produced radioactive atoms.

### Radiometric Dating is Flawed!! Really?? How Old IS the Earth?

**radiometric dating**, one of ...

Instead of questioning the method, he would say that the radiometric date was not recording the time that the rock solidified.

2017about the magazinesubscriber benefitsabout usissue archiveeventsadvertisersscontact uspress roomcopyright policydigital faqshopcurrent issuespecial issuessubscribeemail newslettervisit our storecustomer serviceprivacy policyterms of usetrips & toursdepartments20 things you didn't knowbig ideahistory lessonsnotes from earthout therereviewsask discovergetting personalmind over matterorigin storyprognosisvital signsrecentour blogsd-briefastrobeatcitizen science salonthe extremo filesinkfishneuroskepticscience sushifield notesthe cruxbody horrorsdead thingsimageolovesick cyborgout thereseriously, science?

For example, if they believed it would take 200 million years for an ammonite (somehow) to turn gradually into say a dog, then all rocks containing fossil ammonites (the index fossil) would be given an age 200 million years older than rocks containing fossils of dogs: the geological column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were all worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating there are so many sources of possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating that most such dates are discarded and never used at all, notably whenever they disagree with the previously agreed-on [index fossil] dates.

Matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to interpret it.

(radiometric dating),We sketched in some technical detail how these dates are calculated using radiometric dating techniques.

If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that's powerful evidence that the ages are probably correct.

In many cases it is easier to detect radioactive decays by the energy burst that each decay gives off.

: the example given in the section [in wiens' article] titled, "the radiometric clocks" shows that an accurate determination of the half-life is easily achieved by direct counting of decays over a decade or shorter.

Confounding factors such as contamination and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community, but are not taken into consideration when the accuracy and validity of these dating methods are examined.

In other words, radiometric dating methods are actually fit into the geological column, which was set up by [index] fossil dating over 100 years ago.

The guide describes a number of radiometric methods and states that for suitable specimens the errors involved in radiometric dating usually amount to several percent of the age result.

To the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the earth is millions of years old.

Dating is self-checking, because the data (after certain preliminary calculations are made) are fitted to a straight line (an "isochron") by means of standard linear regression methods of statistics.

Is there a mote in thy brothers eye or a beam in thine own eye?

See that there are at least two kinds of magma, and u and th get.

Although the half-life of some of them are more consistent with the evolutionary worldview of millions to billions of years, the assumptions used in radiometric dating put the results of all radiometric dating methods in doubt.

There are so many complicated phenomena to consider like this that it calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into question.

Over a thousand research papers are published a year on radiometric dating, essentially all in agreement.

### Radiometric or Absolute Rock Dating

**radiometric**or absolute rock

**dating**. Coverage of key ...