Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Tackling the "assumptions" of radiometric dating...part 1.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Seipai" data-source="post: 65023775" data-attributes="member: 345951"><p>That goes with any sample. If a sample is too young the error bars will make it undateable. But all that tells us is that the sample is too young for the method chosen. For example basalt with xenoliths that is very young can give an incorrect date due to the xenoliths using the K/Ar method. Of course these days we can date the xenoliths or even avoid them in samples. There are all sorts of ways of using a tool incorrectly. In some cases the source of error is obvious. Yet those are the ways that I have seen creationists, perhaps purposefully, misuse radiometric dating to "prove" that it is unreliable.</p><p></p><p>All they ever end up "proving" is that a screwdriver makes a very poor hammer. In other words there is no point in dating fresh basalt with xenoliths. You know that you will get a false advanced age. Someone that does that regardless is definitely less than honest.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Seipai, post: 65023775, member: 345951"] That goes with any sample. If a sample is too young the error bars will make it undateable. But all that tells us is that the sample is too young for the method chosen. For example basalt with xenoliths that is very young can give an incorrect date due to the xenoliths using the K/Ar method. Of course these days we can date the xenoliths or even avoid them in samples. There are all sorts of ways of using a tool incorrectly. In some cases the source of error is obvious. Yet those are the ways that I have seen creationists, perhaps purposefully, misuse radiometric dating to "prove" that it is unreliable. All they ever end up "proving" is that a screwdriver makes a very poor hammer. In other words there is no point in dating fresh basalt with xenoliths. You know that you will get a false advanced age. Someone that does that regardless is definitely less than honest. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Tackling the "assumptions" of radiometric dating...part 1.
Top
Bottom