Between 19 several teams made a number of radiometric measurements, and the results clustered around three ages-1.8 MY, 2.4 MY, and 2.6 MY.Each team criticized the others' techniques of rock sample selection.
- dating middle east women
- Online free granny sex chat uk
- Fuck free onile chat room
- words dating response
Most people, even the experts in the field, forget the assumptions on which radiometric dating is based.
Radioactive Dating There are basically two different kinds of radioactive dating methods.
They covered "expected" ages ranging from 1 to 600 million years.
In almost every case of a discrepancy, the fossil dates were accepted as correct. Woodmorappe quoted one researcher as saying: In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.2 When these reports did discuss the possible causes of errors, they used words such as "possibly," "perhaps," "probably," "may have been," etc.
"How can creationists expect people to accept a young earth when science has proved through radiometric dating that the earth is billions of years old?
" This article addresses that question, which represents the thinking of a large number of people today.
Other measurements, some as low as 0.5 MY, were said to be anomalously young.
These were explained as possible overprinting by an alkaline-rich hot water infusion.
Marvin Lubenow gives a good description of the ten years of controversy surrounding the dating of this skull.4 In the first attempt at dating the KBS Tuff, Fitch and Miller analyzed the raw rocks, and got dates ranging from 212 to 230 MY-the Triassic period, vastly older than expected.
Because mammal bones had been found below this stratum, they said these dates were obviously in error because of "the possible presence of extraneous argon derived from inclusions of pre-existing rocks." Even though the rock looked good, anything older than 5 MY was obviously wrong in view of their knowledge of the "sequence of evolutionary development." Meanwhile a team from the University of California at Berkeley, led by G. Curtis, analyzed several KBS pumice rocks and found some that were around 1.6 MY and some that were about 1.8 MY.
Reasons given usually involved detrital intrusion, leakage or leaching of some of the isotopes in the sample, and sometimes the initial isotopic content of the sample.