Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods

Praeses

Praeses

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
4,932
I found an interesting article about radiometric dating for those interested: Linky

The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock's age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.

Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only1% or so.
Click to expand...
 
Praeses

Praeses

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
4,932
Radiometric dating with some responses to creationist claims

Doubters Still Try

Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true--perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods.

Some people have tried to defend a young Earth position by saying that the half-lives of radionuclides can in fact be changed, and that this can be done by certain little-understood particles such as neutrinos, muons, or cosmic rays. This is stretching it. While certain particles can cause nuclear changes, they do not change the half-lives. The nuclear changes are well understood and are nearly always very minor in rocks. In fact the main nuclear changes in rocks are the very radioactive decays we are talking about.
Click to expand...
 
M

markforbes

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
13
I found this forum by searching for helium and fossils.
Praeses said:
ahem :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Is pasting a link all you can do? Why not elaborate on the arguments being made? It's also interesting that this article is for most a personal attack against Humphreys. Why get personal, if your arguments are sound?
Humphreys responded to that as well: http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp
And the result is that the influence of pressure was neglectable.
 
rwenzori

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,360
Well, I suppose Lazarus also got raised from the dead. Are you a YEC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top