nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Acceptance and reliability, and bibliography
[[Young Earth creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.
[[Young Earth creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.
== Acceptance and reliability ==
Although radiometric dating methods are widely used and their results widely quoted, they are not necessarily reliable and scientists using them often do not accept their accuracy.
{{QuoteBox|If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it.<ref>T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson, ‘C14 dating and Egyptian chronology’, in ''Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology'', Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Ingrid U. Olsson (editor), Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 35, 1970. Quoted in Lamb, 2007.</ref>}}
A geological guidebook published by the [[Queensland]] government acknowledges that the dates are not absolute, but must be interpreted:
{{QuoteBox|Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. ... if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable<ref>Walker, 2002</ref>}}
One example of scientists not accepting radiometric dates is that of [[Mungo Man]], a human fossil from [[New South Wales]].
When originally found, it was dated by [[radiocarbon dating]] at around 30,000 years old.
This was later revised to 40,000 years.
Another scientist later used other methods to derive a date of 62,000 years.
The original discoverer, unconvinced by this result, used a different method again, and again came up with a date of 40,000 years.
The fallibility of dating methods is also illustrated by the fact that dating laboratories are known to improve the likelihood of of getting a "correct" date by asking for the expected date of the item.
For example, the Sample Record Sheet for the University of Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory asks for the estimated age, the basis for the estimate, and the maximum and minimum acceptable ages.<ref>[http://www.radiocarbondating.com/submission%20form%202003.pdf University of Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Sample Record Sheet]</ref>
==Some major methods of radiometric dating==
==Some major methods of radiometric dating==
There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Quarternary Dating Methods, by M. Walker (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>,<ref>Isotopes: Principles and Applications, by G. Faure and T. Mensing (Wiley & Sons, 2005).</ref>
There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Walker, 2005</ref><ref>Faure and Mensing, 2005</ref>
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]
#[[Uranium-thorium]]
#[[Uranium-thorium]]
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]
== Bibliography ==
* Lamb, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026 Carbon dating into the future] 24th March, 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Faure, G. and Mensing, T., Isotopes: Principles and Applications, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, M., Quarternary Dating Methods, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/470 The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating], ''Creation'' 24(4):20–23, September 2002.
==References==
==References==
<references/>
<references/>
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]