Radioactive dating flaws
These dates are perfectly in line with the dates we saw in the Mount St Helens study; so perhaps the explanation is, yet again, residual equipment contamination, or foreign rock intrusion? I told you this stuff doesn't get you high." No, the only reason it's not getting you high is because you're not using it correctly.Rather than the dating techniques being flawed, perhaps it's "If a recent lava flow, a recent eruption, where we know the true age of the rock from observation or historical evidence gets the answer wrong using the Potassium-Argon method, how can we trust them on ancient rocks when we don't have the historical documentation? Try tearing out a page from your Bible and rolling a joint with that shit, and then come and talk to me."Another Devastating Failure For Long-Age Geology?The young-earth creationist belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old massively contradicts the scientific conclusion that it's actually 4.5 billion years old. Imagine, by analogy, that a murder suspect is being questioned by detectives.In order to maintain this belief of theirs, creationists obviously need to call into question the trustworthiness of the dating methods used by scientists to establish the age of the Earth. They say to him: "Look, the surveillance footage clearly shows you stabbing the guy.This doesn't therefore make these tools completely worthless; it just means that sometimes, they get it wrong—but when properly applied, the techniques will give us the correct answer the vast majority of the time.—The next example is much more tantalizing because it purportedly shows two wildly divergent dates One problem with this quote: It doesn't appear to actually exist—much like God, I might add! Secondly, none of the radiocarbon dates for mammoths given in that table are 44,000 or 29,500. One is referred to as a baby mammoth, while the other is simply referred to as a mammoth; one is described as being potentially contaminated by glycerine, while the other is not.Nowhere does the cited study appear to contain this particular sentence. So not only is the quote a fabrication but the information contained in it is too. On top of that, the two samples were collected And note that these dates are presented in this table on page 30 of the study—the specific page referenced by Eric Hovind as the source of this quote—so what is going on here?The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank.Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years 'old' from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time."Once again, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this discrepancy, and this doesn't justify a wholesale dismissal of radiometric dating. Now you might be saying at this point: If we can't use these dating methods on certain types of rock or animal, it seems to me that they're just not trustworthy.
Notice that four of the examples show a radiometric age of less than half a million years with the fifth example showing an age of about 1.5 million years. they take 27 samples from a formation that they know in advance will give them bad dates." we couldn't trust these dating techniques." This would be like taking a bag of marijuana, rubbing some of it on your skin, and being like: "See, dude?
The answer is we can't." Or maybe we can if we simply use the correct equipment and remove foreign particles from the sample to minimize contamination? " More like another example of a creationist who doesn't know what the fuck they're doing—or worse, know what they're doing and is being intentionally dishonest.—Creationists will also point to examples where freshly killed animals are carbon-dated as being thousands of years old—thus, we're told, these dating methods cannot be trusted.
And recall that, as Henke pointed out, this problem of equipment contamination is unique to younger rocks; if we're dealing with rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old, the trace amounts of leftover argon adding a million years or so to the sample is going to have only the tiniest effect on the dated age of the rock. For example, we read on Creation that: "[This finding] does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all.
Understand that nobody is saying radiometric dating works perfectly in every conceivable set of circumstances; as with almost every tool in science, there are certain limitations to radiometric dating—and nobody understands these limitations better than the scientists who use these dating techniques. "As we can see here in the table from the study, the two references to mammoths provide one date of 32,700 years for the first one, and 21,300 years for the other.
As they write on Talk Origins, By analogy, diagnostic tools in medicine will sometimes generate false positives, where the test results inaccurately indicate that a person has a disease that they don't actually have. No part of the article goes 'one part of the Vollosovitch mammoth…', it’s all a table. There is no indication whatsoever that these two dates are referring to the same mammoth; in fact, quite the opposite is the case." It sounds like pretty powerful evidence when you first hear about it, but the obvious question that needs to be asked is: How trustworthy is the science behind these findings? One crucial mistake that these creationists made was using the wrong equipment to date their sample. I think I actually have an idea of what went wrong here: these creationists, at the outset of their study, had a very good plan in place for how to conduct rigorous analysis on this question; in the course of their research, however, they ended up dropping this plan , so they just said "Fuck it" and decided to wing it from that point on.