Isotopes are important to geologists because each radioactive element decays at a constant rate, which is unique to that element.
What rock group can radioactive dating be used with
The other is that the decay products of various atoms are always the same. Just looking at this list, I can see that none of these are actually assumptions used by radioactive dating methods and/or they are known issues and compensated for. Something that this particular website has none of. Basically, just like all creationists, they are making stuff up and then hoping you won’t check them on it. 1) atmosphere has always had the same amount of C-14 This is obviously in reference to carbon-14 dating of formerly living tissue.
This is also actually kind of trivial and easily determined in the lab. Let’s see what the Missing Universe Museum thinks are the assumptions of radioactive dating methods. I guess we have to start at the top and work our way down… During an organisms life, it takes in CO have the common 6 protons and 6 neutrons. However, due to some interesting nuclear chemistry (which I’ll go into if requested), there’s another version of carbon (called an isotope) that has 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Note that if the number of protons change, then the atom is no longer carbon. Amazingly (and unlike what is claimed by the creationists), scientists have known about a variety of methods that create carbon-14 and how those methods have varied over time. Well, we take a carbon sample from a material of a known age and date that. Basically, the calibration curves are off by no more than 16 years over the historical range (6,000 years or so) and no more than 163 years over the last 20,000 years.
This gives us the impression that all but a small percentage of the dates computed by radiometric methods agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found, and that all of these various methods almost always give ages that agree with each other to within a few percentage points.
Since there doesn't seem to be any systematic error that could cause so many methods to agree with each other so often, it seems that there is no other rational conclusion than to accept these dates as accurate.
By the late 18th century, some naturalists had begun to look closely at the ancient rocks of the Earth.
They observed that every rock formation, no matter how ancient, appeared to be formed from still older rocks.After study and discussion of this question, I now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found.Many rocks and organisms contain radioactive isotopes, such as U-235 and C-14.Possible other sources of correlation Anomalies of radiometric dating Why a low anomaly percentage is meaningless The biostrategraphic limits issue Preponderance of K-Ar dating Excuses for anomalies Need for a double-blind test Possible changes in the decay rate Isochrons Atlantic sea floor dating Dating Meteorites Conclusion Gentry's radiohaloes in coalified wood Carbon 14 dating Tree ring chronologies Coral dating Varves Growth of coral reefs Evidence for catastrophe in the geologic column Rates of erosion Reliability of creationist sources Radiometric dating methods estimate the age of rocks using calculations based on the decay rates of radioactive elements such as uranium, strontium, and potassium.On the surface, radiometric dating methods appear to give powerful support to the statement that life has existed on the earth for hundreds of millions, even billions, of years.By the mid- to late 1800s, geologists, physicists, and chemists were searching for ways to quantify the age of the Earth.