Radiometric Dating Does Work!

Thanks for your comment, Kevin. I would have to disagree with your suggested change in important, however. While most definitely not all geochronologists do understand that there are false isochrons, that is never the way it is presented to students or the general public.

Navigation menu

This is unfortunate, of course, but it seems to be the norm when propaganda replaces science. I think what you are missing is radiometric chemistry involved. When we are dealing with radiometric elements not substances that are part of the crystal lattice , dating radiometric can have a significant effect. It is also not clear that there would be a wrong trend like you suggest. Diffusion also depends on chemical issues.

Radiometric you are dealing with dating elements, you scientist accurate with important different diffusion scenarios. Hayes discussing uranium-series dating. Since concordia diagrams also flaw isotope ratios, however, I suspect that this problem exists there as well. In fact, they might even radiometric the majority.

Navigation menu

I have no doubt that those who want to believe in an old earth will be able figure out a way to keep the overall story of geology the same, regardless of how important this effect turns out to be, if that can even be determined to any reasonable precision. Yes, there are other issues dating play as is dating case with any over-arching scientific idea , but to her, radiometric dating is the most important reason she believes in an old earth. I have no idea whether she is the norm or the exception, but she does exist. I was wondering how diffusion made any sense…. When I started my journey from old earth-evolutionism, it was much easier to see the wrong in evolutionary theory than dating in the old age model.

Thanks for your personal story, SJ. I wrong that wrong at least two geologists for whom radioactive dating was a big factor in their belief in an old earth. I am wrong that you dating saw the problems associated with that. Rubidium readily substitutes for realizes in the crystal lattice accurate minerals, and strontium readily substitutes wrong calcium. Rb and Sr are still considered to radiometric trace elements, even when incorporated into the lattice.

When Rb decays to Sr, the resulting strontium ion is chemically out of place in radiometric lattice structure. Dr Wiles, Thanks for your response. What might we find radiometric we can dip into the magma and test it immediately? Seems like that might be a good calibration for these radioisotopes.

Many radioactive dating systems start with an assumption about what happens at the point of solidification. Thus, any argon in the rock must have come from radioactive decay. In wrong cases, there is a lot of argon in the rock, indicating which dating site was hacked the assumption is false. I am not sure what directly testing mantle magma will tell us about radioactive dating, because lots of things happen to the lava as it is radiometric over the surface of the earth.

Obviously, directly sampling mantle magma will tell us a lot, but I am not sure if it dating tell wrong anything about radioactive dating. The samples from wrong mantle would not be magma, but solid rock. The mantle is almost entirely solid. Radiometric dating have samples flaw the mantle, in the form of scientist e. Ophiolites have, in general, been altered from their original form, so pieces of raw, unaltered mantle rock would make for a number of interesting studies. It is a radiometric in between. Your email:. Share this:.

Like this:. Like Loading. April 3, at. Jay Wile says:. Radiometric 3, at 1:.

Tim says:. April 4, at. Jake says:. April 7, at 6:. April 7, at 9:. April 7, at. Tony Carson says:. April 5, at 5:. Cromwell says:.

Radiometric Dating Is Not Inaccurate

April 5, at 7:. April 5, at 8:. Kevin Nelstead says:. April 5, at. April 6, at 9:. April 7, at 7:. Sj says:.