radioactive dating: how accurate is it really?

[tubasteve]

does anyone have any ideas on radioactive dating? or any other kind of dating used to date the earth for that matter. that seems to be key in an arguement about evolution, but i don't see much information about it. i have gone to a few sites and read about it (christian and non christian) and neither seemed to be very helpfull. i did run across a page on the answersingenesis.org site that attempted to shed some light on the inaccuracies of the dating methods, but i don't know how reliable that can be. plus cf won't let me post the link. oh well.

 

[JGMEERT]

What exactly do you want to know about radioactive dating? What didn't you understand. Given that you've read some on the topic, it would help us focus our answers if you gave some specifics. Otherwise, we can just point you to an endless number of websites.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Chi_Cygni]

You didn't see much info about it tubasteve???????????

One Google search will give you more than you can read in a month on this subject.

 

[tubasteve]

yes but how much usefull? i've been through all that

 

[tubasteve]

i'm interested in learning about the level of accuracy, preferably from nonchristian and christian scientists to compare
i only found one site that even mentioned that it had ever been wrong, i mean explicitly wrong

 

[MartinM]

Start here.

 

[TrueCreation]

does anyone have any ideas on radioactive dating? or any other kind of dating used to date the earth for that matter. that seems to be key in an arguement about evolution, but i don't see much information about it. i have gone to a few sites and read about it (christian and non christian) and neither seemed to be very helpfull. i did run across a page on the answersingenesis.org site that attempted to shed some light on the inaccuracies of the dating methods, but i don't know how reliable that can be. plus cf won't let me post the link. oh well.

--Radioisotopic dating is either (1) completely accurate without flaw of any kind (with the exception of human and methodological error), (2) accurate in terms of a relative dating method [ie. a date of 1 Gya, this is older than 1 Mya, but they may not be representative of the presumed time scale based on the decay constant](3) or is completely useless.

--We can throw away #3 because it is well substantiated that patterns with inferred radioisotopic ages are found extensively in the geologic record (eg. by applying the principle of superposition). #1 is backed up by the fact that it simply applies the current known unvariable decay rate. #2 is currently for all I know, much less viable than #1, though I don't discredit it based on my lack of knowledge. Neither do I discredit it based on the positive evidence for the alternative #1 with an unvariable decay rate.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[JGMEERT]

--Radioisotopic dating is either (1) completely accurate without flaw of any kind (with the exception of human and methodological error), (2) accurate in terms of a relative dating method [ie. a date of 1 Gya, this is older than 1 Mya, but they may not be representative of the presumed time scale based on the decay constant](3) or is completely useless.

--We can throw away #3 because it is well substantiated that patterns with inferred radioisotopic ages are found extensively in the geologic record (eg. by applying the principle of superposition). #1 is backed up by the fact that it simply applies the current known unvariable decay rate. #2 is currently for all I know, much less viable than #1, though I don't discredit it based on my lack of knowledge. Neither do I discredit it based on the positive evidence for the alternative #1 with an unvariable decay rate.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

JM:you are wrong, there are also errors arising from natural effects (excess argon etc).

cheers

joe meert

 

[TrueCreation]

JM:you are wrong, there are also errors arising from natural effects (excess argon etc).

cheers

joe meert

--I subconsciously attributed to the methodological error, but I guess it wouldn't fit. I agree, we cannot forget this fact.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose