dating manners for teens Radiometric dating disproved

Creationists seem to think that a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, but such a conclusion is illogical.Even things that work well do not work well all of the time and under all circumstances.

radiometric dating disproved-75radiometric dating disproved-19radiometric dating disproved-4

As a result, it is nearly impossible to be completely fooled by a good set of radiometric age data collected as part of a well-designed experiment.The purpose of this paper is to describe briefly a few typical radiometric dating studies, out of hundreds of possible examples documented in the scientific literature, in which the ages are validated by other available information.Usually determinations of age are repeated to avoid laboratory errors, are obtained on more than one rock unit or more than one mineral from a rock unit in order to provide a cross-check, or are evaluated using other geologic information that can be used to test and corroborate the radiometric ages.Scientists who use radiometric dating typically use every means at their disposal to check, recheck, and verify their results, and the more important the results the more they are apt to be checked and rechecked by others.Did you know that you can be a Christian, and believe that the earth is billions of years old?

You can even believe in evolution and be a Christian.In order to accomplish their goal of discrediting radiometric dating, however, creationists are faced with the daunting task of showing that a preponderance of radiometric ages are wrong — that the methods are untrustworthy most of the time.Not only that, they have to show the flaws in those dating studies that provide independent corroborative evidence that radiometric methods work.I have selected four examples from recent literature, mostly studies involving my work and that of a few close colleagues because it was easy to do so.I could have selected many more examples but then this would have turned into a book rather than the intended short paper.These melted crystals, and therefore the impact, have been dated by the 40Ar/39Ar method at 74.1 Ma (million years; Izett and others 1998), but that is not the whole story by a long shot.