Radiometric dating for fossils often

Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Second, it is an approach doomed to failure at the outset.

radiometric dating for fossils often-70

Other creationists have focused on instances in which radiometric dating seems to yield incorrect results.

In most instances, these efforts are flawed because the authors have misunderstood or misrepresented the data they attempt to analyze (for example, Woodmorappe 1979; Morris HM 1985; Morris JD 1994).

So in order to date most older fossils, scientists look for layers of igneous rock or volcanic ash above and below the fossil.

Scientists date igneous rock using elements that are slow to decay, such as uranium and potassium.

According to popular ideas about the “age of dinosaurs,” those bones should have no radioactive carbon at all.

The result: Laboratories in the United States no longer date dinosaur bones. Neutron Capture in Carbon-Dated Dinosaur Bones Some scientists are feeling awkward trying to get their hands around a T-Rex type dinosaur that appears much younger than it “should be.” The Allosaurus remains in question were excavated in 1989 in Colorado. So why do we always seem to find that isotope of carbon [radioactive C14] when we do that testing on dinosaur bones?

That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants.

his document discusses the way radiometric dating and stratigraphic principles are used to establish the conventional geological time scale.

What solutions are available for increasing accuracy of the tests? From the source linked above: Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique.

Comments are closed.