Rocks radiometric dating

To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as: There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older “ages.” Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years.Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are.Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently.However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard C produced and therefore dating the system.The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the Earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on Earth.This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years.Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable C.

Leave a Reply