Dating fossils and rocks mike riddle
The evidence many find persuasive: radiometric dating.But is radiometric dating really the objective hard science many believe it to be?From the data above, obviously that is not the case.And the differences can be quite dramatic: Basalt – a type of volcanic rock – dated by K-Ar to 45 million years old, while unfossilized wood entombed in the basalt is dated to 45 thousand years old by Carbon14 dating. Or the indisputable example of rock formed during the Mt Saint Helens eruption in 1980.They know that radiometric dating is not, and in fact cannot be the precise science they want you to believe it is.Consider: In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (Potassium-Argon) age it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.So aircraft designers and pilots can predict, given a certain set of circumstances precisely how much runway a plane will need to take off , and land; how much fuel will be burned, etc. Given the same conditions, the aircraft doesn’t need 2,000 feet of runway to take off one day, and 500 feet to take off the next day, and 3,000 feet another day.
Here’s how the method is supposed to work:“6” is the atomic number and means it has 6 protons. A carbon “isotope” is formed when the number of neutrons vary from what is expected from the atomic weight.
On the other hand, would I bet my life on the supposed age of a rock, or fossil based on radiometric dating and the testimony of some Ph D scientists?
No, never; and I dare say neither would those same scientists because they know the limitations of the science.
Or consider the statement of an evolutionist who didn’t agree with the radiometric dating (using five different radiometric techniques) of Australia’s “Mungo Man”, thinking it placed humans in Australia too early.
He stated: So here’s another evolutionist who refused to accept the results given from radiometric dating.