K ar dating method Free no member cams

Therefore, in virtually every case, scientists do not know what the original condition of the rock was; and, even if they did know, they don't any more due to heat contamination, mixing, and leaching. Snelling in an article on this topic Note: As for the few cases where scientists do know what the "original" condition (or date of eruption) was, they still have not been able to come up with the correct "date" for the age of the rock without all sorts of fancy footwork and massaging of data.

That's because radiometric dating (with the exception of Carbon 14) is almost always performed on igneous rocks (i.e. Also because, when different substances are in a liquid state, something known as mixing almost always takes place: meaning that whenever a liquid (or molten) rock is erupted out of the earth, both the mother and daughter elements will be "mixed" together, thus making it virtually impossible to determine the time that an eruption took place.

The bottom line is that there are only two ways to verify whether or not radiometric dating methods have any credibility at all. To compare the results with known dates based on historical and/or archeological data, 2. * The depth here refers to the depth below the surface of the water, since this volcano produced a lava flow that flowed down the mountain and into the ocean.* Notes: Where abbreviations are used: b. * Cubic Diamonds from Zaire were included because the "age" derived from them is greater than the purported (4.5 b.y.) age of the earth.

To do this they have selected a certain meteorite, which contained various types of lead (including lead 204, 206, 207 and 208) but no uranium, and they have assumed that this ratio is equivalent to the earth's original lead ratio.

They did this because it is almost certain that these lead isotopes were all present in large quantities when the earth was created.

Although these eruptions were less than 200 years old, the radiometric "dates" obtained from them were 140 million to 2.96 billion years for one, and from 0 to 29 million years for the other -- depending upon the (ocean) depth at which the lava sample was obtained. This also brings up an important question: If radiometric dating methods are unable to produce the correct date in cases where the actual date of eruption is known, why should we believe that these same methods can produce accurate dates when the date of eruption is unknown?

The point is simply this: radiometric dating is known to produce grossly erroneous dates when heat is involved in the formation or fossilization process.

Another problem that calls into question the credibility of radiometric dating is heat contamination.

For example, In 1973, in Alberta, Canada (near the town of Grand Prairie) a high voltage line fell which caused nearby tree roots to fossilize almost instantly.

If, on the other hand, it is found that the radii vary, then this is proof that the half-life of that decay is not constant.

This was first shown by Joly and Henderson who conducted most of the early studies on pleochroic haloes. We have solid evidence that radioactive decay rates cannot have been constant.

For Uranium/Lead dating this means that some of the uranium that was initially present would be "leached" out of the rock.

Leaching can also cause uranium to be leached into rocks that have little or no uranium in them.

And since the only rocks which yield ages in excess of 100,000 years are of volcanic origin, this method of dating the earth is not based on science, but rather speculation and subjective reasoning.

Tags: , ,