Radiometric dating methods flaws Chat with random horny girls
Such uncertainties are usually glossed over, especially when radioactive dates are communicated to the public and, more importantly, to students.
Generally, we are told that scientists have ways to analyze the object they are dating so as to eliminate the uncertainties due to unknown processes that occurred in the past. Hayes has pointed out a problem with isochrons that has, until now, not been considered.
As I have stated previously, we just don’t know a lot about radioactive decay.
Certainly not enough to justify the incredibly unscientific extrapolation necessary in an old-earth framework.
Since a neutron has no charge, it must become positively charged after emitting an electron. Of course, there are all sorts of uncertainties involved.
How much Sr-87 was in the rock when it first formed?
The isochron is supposed to take care of such issues.
Essentially, rather than looking at the amounts of Rb-87 and Sr-87, we look at their compared to Sr-86.
If the effects of diffusion can be taken into account, it will require an elaborate model that will most certainly require elaborate assumptions. Hayes suggests a couple of other approaches that might work, but its not clear how well. If you believe the earth is very old, then most likely, all of the radioactive dates based on isochrons are probably overestimates. I have no idea, and I don’t think anyone else does, either. Hayes’s model indicates it could add as much as 29 billion years to ages determined with rubidium and strontium, although his model is rather simplistic.It refers to one specific source of error – the uncertainty in the measurement of the amounts of various atoms used in the analysis.Most likely, that is the least important source of error.However, it’s important to note that some radioactive dates (like those that come from carbon-14) don’t use the isochron method, so they aren’t affected by this particular flaw.As a young-earth creationist, I look at this issue in a different way.