Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?
This site is the blogging component for my main site Crank Astronomy formerly "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy". It will provide a more interactive component for discussion of the main site content. I will also use this blog to comment on work in progress for the main site, news events, and other pseudoscience-related issues. Well, I am YEC, and I must admit this is certainly embarrassing.
However, it was late that I became increasingly convinced that the 'real' biggest problem of radioactive isotope dating is fallible paradigm is the radiation-heat problem. Mere ordinal days do not begin to allow for the enormous heat dissipation necessary to radioactive isotope dating is fallible the radioactive isotope dating is fallible. According to Jellison, even a year is pitifully insufficient.
Day 2 contains about 4 million years, Day 3, about 3 million, etc. The creationist response was dismissive and Bridgman and Jellison, though polite in their remarks, thought the model probably contained only questionable science. But great intrinsic age in the geology of Earth occurring over the passage of mere ordinal days simply does not appear to be an option YECers can continue to dismiss. The Genesis window for the great upheaval of land is simply Day 3 and no more.
That is why I still believe that by the end of creation Day 1, the planet contains great intrinsic age, is thoroughly cooled, and is peacefully rotation on its axis. I feel that YECers are waiting way too late to try and cool a planet that absolutely has to already be cooled radioactive isotope dating is fallible closer to the beginning. Sincerely, You guys know my name. But that's the tip of the iceberg, since countless other compelling arguments for evolution and an old earth also exist.
How do you "get out of it? I faced all this and abandoned YECism. That's the only sensible thing to do. Friday, February 5, ICR: Radioactive Isotope Dating Is Fallible. Their claims about the unreliability of radiometric dating, and the reality of accelerated nuclear online dating sevilla that compressed millions of years of apparent radiometric history into less than a year, were vindicated.
Not a word of it radioactive isotope dating is fallible true. The research that was reported — or rather distorted — by ICR was performed by G. Brennecka, a graduate student at Arizona State University, along with colleagues at ASU and two institutions in Germany. Published in the January 22, issue of Science , the study investigated whether two uranium isotopes always occur in the same ratio in meteorites.
In previous measurements on samples from the Earth, the Moon, and meteorites, the ratio between U and U dating greenock scotland generally been found to have the same value, In Pb-Pb dating, scientists measure the concentrations of two lead isotopes, one derived from the decay of U, and dlist hookup other from U The equation used to derive the age from Pb-Pb measurements requires scientists to know the ratio between the two uranium isotopes.
Brennecka and his colleagues measured the uranium isotope ratio in thirteen calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions CAIs from the Allende meteorite, which fell on Mexico in Probably the best-studied meteorite in the world, Allende is an unusually large example of a primitive class of meteorites called carbonaceous chrondrites. Evidence shows that its CAIs include some of the first solids to condense during the birth of the Solar System, and their age is thought to represent the age of the Solar System itself.
Using refinements of existing techniques, Brennecka et al. This small variation, if confirmed in further studies, is enough to bring about a change in the radiometric dates of meteorites, and of the Solar System, of about 0. The work by Brannecka et al. The variation they found is apparently due to an excess of U, and the most likely explanation is enrichment of this isotope by decay of a curium isotope, Cm But no one has detected this short-lived isotope in the Solar System before, and it is only created in certain types of supernovae.
This new work, suggesting the existence of supernova-derived atoms in the protoplanetary disk, may radioactive isotope dating is fallible important implications for the evolution of the Solar System, and its relationship to its galactic environment. So much for real science. What did ICR make of all this? The honest thing, of course, would have been to withdraw the article, with a full explanation and a public apology to the scientists whose work was so blatantly misrepresented.
Instead, ICR kept the article and the references to Brannecka et al. Their conclusions are immune to facts. This tiny correction testifies to the precision and reliability of current radiometric dating technology. Radioactive Isotope Dating Is Fallible" by Brian Thomas. For less-technical online explanations of the research, see the ASU press release and the article by L.