Why radioactive dating is wrong

Posted by / 25-Sep-2016 19:16

The older a sample is, the less (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit accurate analysis of older samples.

The idea behind radiocarbon dating is straightforward, but years of work were required to develop the technique to the point where accurate dates could be obtained.

Research has been ongoing since the 1960s to determine what the proportion of in the atmosphere has been over the past fifty thousand years.

The resulting data, in the form of a calibration curve, is now used to convert a given measurement of radiocarbon in a sample into an estimate of the sample's calendar age.

By the way, it is important to understand that most rock strata “dates” were actually assigned long before the first use of radioactive age estimating methods in 1911.

The Carbon-14 age estimating method is, at best, only useful for estimating the age of things that are thousands of years old, not millions or billions.

Theoretically, Creationism remains workable within a wide range of age estimates.

Scientists have proposed numerous age estimation methods.

Various radioactive elements are involved, including Carbon-14, Uranium-238, Thorium-232, and Potassium-40.Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century.There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them.­You've probably heard people talk about radiation both in fiction and in real life.For example, when the Enterprise approaches a star on "Star Trek," a member of the crew might warn about an increase in radiation levels.

why radioactive dating is wrong-73why radioactive dating is wrong-30why radioactive dating is wrong-43

One thought on “why radioactive dating is wrong”