Answer key to radiometric dating assignment Chat with free horny hirls no credit card needed
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.
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.
All of these dating methods begin with some radioactive isotope such as U-238, U-235, Th-232, K-40, or Rb-87. These elements are naturally radioactive, that is, they spontaneously emit an alpha or a beta particle and, as a result, are transformed into some different element, called the “daughter” isotopes.
For those who would like more details, these systems are briefly described in the boxes on the following pages.
If you are taking my GY 112 class, you have that permission. Also be advised that these notes probably contain glaring errors and typos. Occasionally I make use of materials from other sources (primarily scientific publications).
This statement – that radiometric dates are “corrected” by reference to evolution-based index fossils – is hotly contested, but examination of the technical literature shows that it is true, in spite of what elementary textbooks say. Documented Discrepancies The general public believes that radiometric results are consistent and thus demonstrably reliable. John Woodmorappe did an extensive literature search, looking at 445 technical articles from 54 reputable geochronology and geology journals.1 These reports listed over 350 dates, measured by radiometric methods, that conflicted badly with the ages assigned to fossils found in these same strata.
Author: By Curt Sewell“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?