How is radioactive dating important for providing evidence for evolution

How is radioactive dating important for providing evidence for evolution

Unreliability of Radiometric Dating and Old Age of the Earth

In stead, theories in the natural sciences are supported and confirmed through evidence. Since the bulk of K-Ar dates are generally accepted as correct, one may say that certain minerals are reliable if they tend to give similar dates, and unreliable otherwise. Zircons exclude lead, for example, so U-Pb dating can be applied to zircon to determine the time since lava cooled. Modern lava flows often come down the sides of volcanoes, and thus become separated from their source by large distances.

It seems reasonable, then, that mixings may be affecting all Rb-Sr isochrons in igneous rock. It had been noted that some minerals which yield such dates as beryl, cordierite, etc. Radioactive dating can only provide indirect evidence for evolution. If bentonite does not always give correlate and correct ages, this calls into question its use for dating the K-T boundary. There can also be argon or other daughter products added from the air or from other rocks.

Many sedimentary uranium ores

It's not as easy as it might sound. The issue is not just how well this was known in the past, but which value was actually used, and whether dates published in the past have been computed with the most recent value. The fossils were found in a piece of rock that was on a cliff next to the ocean. Even the creationist accounts that I have read do not adequately treat these issues.

Also the assumption is used in the very process of gathering and calculating or calibrating the measurement. It is also remarkable that we have a test for mixing, which is commonly cited in support of the accuracy of radiometric dating, but when it gives contrary results, it is simply ignored. Furthermore, it is possible that the craters were chosen as those for which the dating methods agreed. There may be evidence of heating, but the date may be accepted, and there may be no such evidence, but a hypothetical heating event is assumed anyway. Thus the agreement found between many dates does not necessarily reflect an agreement between different methods, but rather the agreement of the K-Ar method with itself.

Many dates give values near the

Again, the percentage of anomalies means nothing for the reliability of radiometric dating. Some fossils are found in Precambrian rocks, but most of them are found in Cambrian and later periods. Coffin mentions that fission tracks can survive transport through lava, for example.

Many sedimentary uranium ores are not. Many dates give values near the accepted ones. For this reason, island chains like the Galapagos provide us with convincing evidence for shared ancestry.

For this reason island chains

This would result in larger K-Ar ages lower down, but lower ages nearer the surface. However as I mentioned there is no definitive proof either way. Specifically, he quotes one of his anonymous friends that claims that argon easily diffuses from minerals p. If evolution has become a friend to the Christian, then it's high time someone tells me how. Thus radiometric dating methods appear to give evidence that the earth and meteorites are old, if one accepts the fact that decay rates have been constant.

Carbon dating is not used on fossils. This statement is made so often as evidence for the reliability of radiometric dating, that the simple evidence that it has no meaning, is astounding to me.