Does Radiometric Dating Yield Inaccurate Results?

[-0_0-]

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp#top

Read the whole thing.

Now, after reading this, how can anyone be so certain of the accuracy of radiometric dating techniques?

[steen]

Just how do YEC's go about tackling such a vast edifice?

See my sig

[USIncognito]

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate.

I'm going to ignore Zero's repeated ad nauseums of the OP, and comment that the Hawaiian chain along with three mountain chains are powerful evidence against all surface topography being "created" simultaneously. The Himilayas are clearly young, sharp, massive and growing as India continues to slam into Asia. The Rockies and Apallacians are two ranges on the same continent that show two very different weathering and errosive patterns. It's obvious to any impartial observer that the latter is much older and more weathered by the former - and since we have over 300 years of direct observation, we can conclude that this difference is not due to some mystical devine intervention, but time only.

[MagusYanam]

The Himilayas are clearly young, sharp, massive and growing as India continues to slam into Asia. The Rockies and Apallacians are two ranges on the same continent that show two very different weathering and errosive patterns. It's obvious to any impartial observer that the latter is much older and more weathered by the former - and since we have over 300 years of direct observation, we can conclude that this difference is not due to some mystical devine intervention, but time only.

Good point, USIncognito. Also, there are the studies starting in 1994 using global positioning to determine that Everest is growing at a rate of four millimetres per year: proof positive that Himalaya is being uplifted. The question here, though, is about extrapolation. I would agree that when you've got 300 years of observation under your belt, so to speak, you may well extrapolate your observations into past ages.

Like with carbon dating, you're depending on the extrapolation to be valid based on a given field of observations. Carbon-14 decays into carbon-12 on a pretty uniform logarithmic scale - that's observation. I would argue that it is not such an outrageous step of logic to assume that logarithmic scale to be relatively accurate extending back thousands or tens of thousands of years (allowing, of course, for a greater degree of error the less carbon-14 you have).

Why would it be problematic - extrapolating back along the logarithmic curve, that is - especially given the regularity of the decay pattern?

[ShieldAxe]

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp#top

Read the whole thing.

Now, after reading this, how can anyone be so certain of the accuracy of radiometric dating techniques?

Selective reporting. A simple google search yields explanations for all af these 'errors'

[Jose]

The Himilayas are clearly young, sharp, massive and growing as India continues to slam into Asia. The Rockies and Apallacians are two ranges on the same continent that show two very different weathering and errosive patterns. It's obvious to any impartial observer that the latter is much older and more weathered by the former - and since we have over 300 years of direct observation, we can conclude that this difference is not due to some mystical devine intervention, but time only.

Good point, USIncognito. Also, there are the studies starting in 1994 using global positioning to determine that Everest is growing at a rate of four millimetres per year: proof positive that Himalaya is being uplifted. The question here, though, is about extrapolation. I would agree that when you've got 300 years of observation under your belt, so to speak, you may well extrapolate your observations into past ages.

Like with carbon dating, you're depending on the extrapolation to be valid based on a given field of observations. Carbon-14 decays into carbon-12 on a pretty uniform logarithmic scale - that's observation. I would argue that it is not such an outrageous step of logic to assume that logarithmic scale to be relatively accurate extending back thousands or tens of thousands of years (allowing, of course, for a greater degree of error the less carbon-14 you have).

Why would it be problematic - extrapolating back along the logarithmic curve, that is - especially given the regularity of the decay pattern?

There is also the curious fact that the radiometric dating happens to fit the pattern of fossil deposition. A paper by Wardlaw offers the following figure to help with the accurate designation of different strata within the Permian rocks of Kansas:

There are error bars, both vertically and horizontally on this graph, so there's no fudging, or pretending the data fit when they don't.

Yeah, yeah...I know the argument that "strata are old because they contain old fossils, and the fossils are old because they are in old strata." In the absence of knowing what's really done, it's easy to imagine that it's wonky. Here's a tidbit of the evidence that it all correlates, and that the radiometric data are perfectly fine.

It's also necessary to note that the conodont fossils used in the correlations really are rather well restricted to strata of a unique age-range, as illustrated here:

The precise correlation with radiometric data explains this rather well, while it is very difficult to imagine a mechanism that would cause all of these species that are so similar in size and shape settle out differently from a single flood.

[Sender]

Radio metric dating is not as acurate as once believed. Fission Track and others should fall by the wayside on November 5. 2005. Stay tuned for the announcement.

[Chimp]

No it turns out they have calibrated it to be more accurate
( If memory serves 50k yrs was the accuracy window for c-14 dating )

http://www.c14dating.com/

Apparently, newer dating can go as far as 75k yrs.

[Sender]

No it turns out they have calibrated it to be more accurate
( If memory serves 50k yrs was the accuracy window for c-14 dating )

http://www.c14dating.com/

Apparently, newer dating can go as far as 75k yrs.

Actually accelerated c14 can go as high as 100,000 years. But more data is soon forth coming. Stay tuned.

[micatala]

Radio metric dating is not as acurate as once believed. Fission Track and others should fall by the wayside on November 5. 2005. Stay tuned for the announcement.

November 5th is now over 2 weeks ago. Not to be impatient, but where is the earth-shattering announcement and corresponding data that is going to relegate radiometric dating to the ash heap of science history?

[Jose]

November 5th is now over 2 weeks ago. Not to be impatient, but where is the earth-shattering announcement and corresponding data that is going to relegate radiometric dating to the ash heap of science history?

The earth-shattering information was presented at the "thousands...not billions" conference. Oddly, the press didn't pick up on such an important overturning of hundreds of years of scientific evidence. Fortunately, there is an unbiased report on the meeting at AiG. Much to everyone's surprise, the purpose of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the age of the earth) project (the subject of the meeting) was to explain why the scientifically determined ages are wrong (with the assumption, of course, that they must be wrong because they can't be right). A brief synopsis of the startling findings are

RATE scientists have attempted to answer the question of why the radioisotope methods are giving the inflated ages. One of the profound results of the RATE research is the exciting evidence of accelerated nuclear decay in the past....

...measurements of helium diffusing (leaking) out of zircon crystals...

...detection of 14C in coal and in diamonds...[and]...in essentially all fossil organic material throughout the geologic column....

... radiohalos (tiny spheres of discolored crystal produced by the decay of radioactive material at their center)...

...The technical results and data of the RATE research can be found in the newly-released book Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth volume II. Dr. Don DeYoung (Ph.D. in physics) has written an easy-to-understand summary of the RATE research in a book for non-specialists entitled Thousands ... Not Billions.

You will note that I have merely quoted AiG's words directly, with correct attribution to them, including the advertisement for their books. I am moved to ask, has anyone seen these basic arguments before? Earth-shattering, indeed.