Radioisotope dating assumptions Kerala sex chat rooms

Posted by / 11-Feb-2017 09:31

That’s just over half a percent error in something that is supposedly multiple billions of years old.Of course, that error estimate is complete nonsense.In this report, for example, we are told that using one radioactive dating technique, a lunar rock sample is 4,283 million years old, plus or minus 23 million years old.In other words, there is a 95% certainty that the age is somewhere between 4,283 23 million years and 4,283 – 23 million years.

Scientists place great faith in this dating method, and yet more than 50% of radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples of northeastern North America have been deemed unacceptable after investigation.If radiometric dating works—and I believe it reveals accurate dates most of the time—Christians should not be intimidated.Geologists have known for a long time that the isotope geochemistry of Earth is complex, and that radiometric dating does not always return what is considered to be a geologically-valid result, but there is no reason for old-Earth Christians to be intimidated by discrepant dates.If those rocks really have been sitting around on the moon for billions of years, I suspect that the the wide range of physical and chemical processes which occurred over that time period had a much more profound effect on the uncertainty of the age determination.This is best illustrated by the radioactive age of a sample of diamonds from Zaire.

radioisotope dating assumptions-19radioisotope dating assumptions-32radioisotope dating assumptions-47

While there is no proof that the rates were different in the past than they are today, there is also no proof that they were the same.