Doubts radiometric dating

Rated 4.71/5 based on 531 customer reviews

Once the radiometric dating methods are examined in their geologic context, it soon becomes obvious that the ages they indicate cannot be taken seriously. Or is each one of the systems force-fitted in order to compel its agreement with the other two systems? This book is the product of 3 years research, and is supported by nearly 500 references from the geologic literature, almost all of which date from 1980-1999, and most of which are from the 1990’s. Shows why the age-of-earth issue is an important one. Are dating results confirmed by the Geomagnetic Polarity Time-Scale (GPTS), or does each of (pp. the two systems tacitly assume that the other one is valid? * Indicates why “good” dates don’t in themselves accredit the dating methods. Leaving aside the question of the validity or otherwise of the methodologies for a moment, do presumed reliability criteria even agree with each other in predicting which dating results will be reliable and which one will not? Does this prove that the correct ages of rocks are at least approximately in the millions to billions of years? Demonstrates how geologists commonly backpedal on opinions of which particular dates are supposedly valid. Practical geochronometry: Assuming for the sake of argument the validity of the “self-checking” methodologies, do we find that geochronologists at least agree among themselves on the reliability or unreliability of particular dating results? (Applies to K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, U-Pb, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, and FT). What of the claim that, as analytical tools improve, the validity of isotopic dating is strengthened? If we point out that uniformitarian geochronologists often don’t publish discrepant dates, are we thereby accusing them of being dishonest?

HIGHLIGHTS: * Debunks isotopic-dating claims, such as the ones about discrepant dates being rare, dates being self-checking as to accuracy, the majority of dates being concordant, the million-billion year ages obtained validating this magnitude of ages, alleged “younging up” in dates, etc. *Proves that isotopic dates DO NOT converge on an assumed age of 4.5 billion years for earth. True or False: If isotopic dating methods were invalid, we would necessarily expect to find as many “zero” dates, and “future” dates, as those that seem to indicate million-to-billion year values? Most recent volcanics give essentially zero K-Ar ages. Reality or Rhetoric: On uniformitarians’ own terms, do Rb-Sr isochrons that fail to indicate the correct age of the rock occur infrequently? Refutes the claim that non-co linearity on an inverse diagram validates the isochron-based date. Apropos to the previous question, would we actually need some sort of massive conspiracy in place to force agreement on “correct” radioisotope dates? * Demonstrates how the highly touted Ar-Ar spectral method has not fulfilled its expectations. Is it fact, or uniformitarian wishful thinking, that there exists a tight consensus of dating results for the Phanerozoic geologic column?

Leave a Reply