According a secular source it's not. Heres the article. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/1610
Fortunately, there is an alternative. https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/
Please read for comprehension. What that study said is that the U238 to u235 ratio may be variable, instead of being a constant 137.88, it is 137.818 ± 0.045--the reasoning may be that at magmatic temperatures (i.e. when the rock is magma, there may be a fractionation of the Isotopes. The difference between 13.788 and 137.811 ± 0.045 isn't great. Dating may be off a few tenths of a percent. All it means is that geologists will have to more carefully consider their samples and assumptions. This does not mean uranium dating is invalid, just that it's not quite as accurate as was thought, by a very small margin. The above is why I get so frustrated with you in this argument. You don't have the background to understand even fairly simple concepts, much less sophisticated ones. Please study before you spout off. I understand you're young and want to disprove everything, but you don't have the background to do it. Study science a few years and get back to us. You need more biology, geology, physics and chemistry at least at the freshman college level before you can argue the points you are arguing accurately. Instead you rely on frauds in the creationist world for your guidance, instead of using first principles and background knowledge.
I've read that part. The margin may be small but it accounts for 2 or 3 million years. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.4.0398 And that's assuming that the conditions today are as relatively calm as it is now. http://www.icr.org/article/6957/
Out of 4.54 billion years, two or three million years is almost nothing. You do understand that out of 4.54 billion years, if you add three million, it's 4.543 billion years. If you subtract three million, it's 4.537 billion years. It still doesn't make it so the earth is only 6000 years old...... (or 10,000 years old). Again, please study before you spout. You need to go back to basics. Please show proof from a scientific journal that shows that the conditions are much different.
I think the scientific community is wrong on a lot of things. That being said, I couldn't read the article because I am not a member. Can you elaborate on the article? Has the scientific community been telling us the dates of things are too young or to old? Say for instance, the Tarim Basin mummies are supposed to be about 3,000 years old. Is this date to early or too late? Never mind. You elaborated in another post.
Depends on the type of radioactive decay. The vast majority of decay rates are not influenced by their environment and their half-lives decay at a constant rate as dependable as any other physical laws. Isotopes that decay with electron capture however can have their decay rates inhibited provided they are fully ionized. There was a study at the University of Purdue, claiming decay rates of certain isotopes varied by the solar season, concluding that the Sun was emitting neutrinos that was changing decay rates. I haven't heard anything about this in a few years. I don't think anything was ever conclusively proven and today at least, decay rates remain constant regardless of the environment. Atomic clocks depend upon this, and GPS depends upon atomic clocks. You can be assured radioactive decay rates are constant.
In this case, the decay rate is constant. What differs is the ratio between the two isotopes, based on the source of the Uranium--they are more variable than thought.
What ? That carbon dating is a reliable source for determining the age of carbon based life forms ? Still wondering how you can dare drive a car whose fuel is reliably search for and found by taking core samples of the earth of likely location then dating these samples to determine the appropriate age of the crude. The use of carbon dating has been an integral part of the energy corporations succesful search for deposits that are millions of years old. So succesful have we been, we have now discovered reserves in North America greater in volume then SA. Your $2 a gallon gas prices are wholly dependent upon the earth being a tad older then 6000. People who aren't engineers and scientists themselves who try to argue this biblical insanity made up by people with way too much time in their hands, is a waste of everyone's time.
Depends on what you're dating. Most uranium is U-238 which has a half life in the billins of years. So our ability to nail down the half life exactly is li,ites. Then there are measuring errors. This does not, however, invalidate it completely. If u-pb dating dates something at 100 million years, it's going to be close to that.
Your own sources say so. They say that at the time of the dinosaurs the earth was more tropic and volcanic. Besides, can you prove that the conditions stayed the same?
I'm addressing uranium dating which to my understanding is the most accurate form of dating is it not? http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Do-Radioisotope-Clocks-Need-Repair.pdf http://www.icr.org/article/can-carbon-dating-be-trusted http://crev.info/2013/01/uranium-lead-dating-fraught-with-discordance/
Regarding the article at http://crev.info/2013/01/uranium-lead-dating-fraught-with-discordance/ Please note the comments section. --------------. One has to wonder why such an article as this is published in a non-professional “journal”, as it deals with esoteric techniques of radio-chemisty. Could it be merely to sow doubt in the minds of lay readers? The discordance touted is admitted to be 1%. Therefore, if one decay stream gives a date of 100 million years, then the other stream will be plus or minus one half of one percent, or .5 million years. Not too bad unless you’re a chemist who wants things perfect. But for someone who is clearly attempting to disprove all of radio-chemical age dating with this example, you must admit the argument is very, very weak. And of course, even a high school student could see that, “The rock doesn’t just talk on its own. Under enough torture, it can be made to squeal out any age the investigator wants,” is pure nonsense. -------------------- I concur.
That would prove that earth was more violent in the past. - - - Updated - - - And as I've pointed out that's assuming that the conditions we see now was always the same.
It's more accurate when measuring rock make up in geology when the times get longer, up to billions of years. Carbon daring dpends upon carbon based life forms for shorter peiods of time, in the millions of years. When you are off a million years when you get to billions of years it's less significant then a miss of a million yeas at shorter time lengths. Bottom line, we are talking about variations so far beyound the 6,000 year biblical end game, it's not worthy of discussion as a pretext for discounting science. I really don't see the point in this discussion. Any discussion of half life and exponential decay has to be discounted if you are a creationalist. You are trying to use scienc to disprove science. You need to use somthing like.....a burning bush or direct comunication with God. If the basis of your belief in the bible rests in finding a mistake in science instead of scientific evidence used to prove the bible, that's a pretty weak argument.
Always thought that they found the age of rock using the proportion of U with lead (its decay product). When the rock turned from liquid to solid there would be no lead in the rock. U would decay producing lead. The more lead then the older the rock. - - - Updated - - - I assume this post is a joke.
Since the uncertainty in the age of the Earth is about 50 million years, this is still well within the existing range of uncertainty.
Radiometric Dating is extremely reliable and accurate. The Earth is approx. 4.54 Billion years old. The Universe is approx. 13.4 Billion years old and we know this due to the velocity of light. AA
Maccabee...I grew up southern baptist and once believed in God, just as you do, but much of what you are being taught is a lie. That isn't to say the leftists aren't lying to you as well (you've got a leg-up on that one), but on this issue... Religion, beyond it's cultural value, has very little (no) scientific or philosophical substance. I would advise you to start your journey skepticism by studying the brain. Study free will, the nature of consciousness, and evolutionary theory. By the time you are finished doing that, you should have your head cleared up. You also need to have sex. This, is very important in your journey.
You addressed carbon dating but not uranium dating which the thread is about. - - - Updated - - - Instead of statements provide evidence.
