Radiometric Dating is False?
Comment on a
YouTube video I commented on:
Jeremy, the
skeletons of mammoth itself are around 28000 years old and fossils of ancient
men are about 45000 years old... your bible lies and it's a fiction... :D only
creationists try to falsify radioactive dating as it debunks bible.... till
this day it's most efficient way to determine the exact timelines... go and ask
an archaeologist/geologist /paleontologist/paleobotanist his unbiased opinion
of how accurate it is & not some retard biblical creationist like
yourself... if it can accurately predict age of ancient biblical texts the same
is also true for mammoths & dinosaurs... you retarded loser there are other
techniques like argon dating, ESR, fission track, potassium argon dating,
startigraphy... which also conclude dinosaurs were millions of years old...
Radiometric
dating is totally useless. When lava that came from Mt Saint Helen's which
erupted in 1980 was tested it came back millions of years old. This is common.
And when different radiometric methods are used they all come back millions of
years (methods you mentioned) different when they should all be the same if it
were accurate. No, even evolutionists say radiometric dating is unreliable. And
some say it is totally useless, I documented this from reliable secular sources
in my book. As for Carbon 14 it only lasts from 50 to 100 thousand years. The
asphalt seeps in Los Angeles carbon date at 10 to 40 thousand years. However,
there is evidence that a nearby supernova may have stretched these dates. Also,
the atmosphere surrounding the earth has changed as documented in amber and
fossil shells, this would affect carbon dates also.
Below I
discovered this article after I wrote my statement above. You will notice the
evolutionist confirms everything I said.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/
Organisms
capture a certain amount of carbon-14 from the atmosphere when they are alive.
By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the
amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the
specimen in question.
Scientific
American says: Carbon 14 dating: "...assumes that the amount of carbon-14
in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the
clock. The clock was initially calibrated by dating objects of known age such
as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii; work that won Willard Libby the
1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But even he “realized that there probably would
be variation”, says Christopher Bronk Ramsey, a geochronologist at the
University of Oxford, UK, who led the latest work, published today in Science.
Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric
carbon-14 levels."
It has been
discovered that there have been processes explosions on the sun and nearby
stars have been discovered.
For the
other radioactive “clocks,” it is assumed that by analyzing multiple samples of
a rock body, or unit, today it is possible to determine how much of the
daughter isotopes (lead, strontium, or neodymium) were present when the rock
formed via the so-called isochron technique.
Yet lava
flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they
erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected. For
example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been
observed to form and cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much
argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years! Similarly, lava flows
on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, known to be less than 50 years old,
yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years.
At the Grand
Canyon lava eruptions took place very recently, after the Canyon’s layers were
deposited. These basalts yield ages of up to 1 million years based on the
amounts of potassium and argon isotopes in the rocks. But when we date the
rocks using the rubidium and strontium isotopes, we get an age of 1.143 billion
years. This is the same age that we get for the basalt layers deep below the
walls of the eastern Grand Canyon.
How could
both lavas—one at the top and one at the bottom of the Canyon—be the same age
based on these parent and daughter isotopes? One solution is that both the
recent and early lava flows inherited the same rubidium-strontium chemistry—not
age—from the same source, deep in the earth’s upper mantle. This source already
had both rubidium and strontium.
Evolution
archaeologists criticized evolutionist and archaeologist, Dee Simpson head of
the Calico Early Man site in the Mojave Desert California, saying that the
dates she was getting of 10 thousand years were too old because it was produced
from the parent volcanic rock which had these parent and daughter elements
already in the when they were deposited.
Comments
Post a Comment