In fact, radiometric dating can be compared to the 'dating' method of keeping a watch. Now, anybody can tell you that a watch is not a reliable way of keeping time, because there are myriad stories of watches running too fast or too slow, or stopping altogether.
And yet we can use watches to be very certain of the time by comparing our watch with the watches of others, and with clocks in the area. Even though each of these 'dating' methods require assumptions, we can be very certain of the correct time by correlating them together.
To add to what Percy said, you could do a statistical analysis of all the clock and watch times in the city, and develop a high degree of confidence that the average value was close to the real time, certainly within the bounds of the standard deviation of all the times.
Similarly, radiometric dates can be trusted when they are correlated with other dates. Thus, in the Creationist model, not only must every single pre-historic dating method known to man universally and constantly give false dates, often off by orders of magnitude, but they must all also coincide with each other in such a way as to make it appear that the earth is billions of years old.
It appears you have a lot to say and no embarrassment about whether it is correct or not.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age
the bolded parts are a very big assumption ...
Denial is not refutation.
Conceptually it is entirely logical and consistent that some evidence of age can be less than the actual age of the earth, however it is not possible for evidence to be older than the earth.
This is not an assumption, it is an objective, impartial and unbiased logial conclusion
... and cannot be verified nor confirmed. such conclusions mean nothing.
quote:At any rate, halos from uranium inclusions are far more common. Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old Earth.
the radii of the halo shells are a function of the decay rates for each isotope,
change the decay rate and you change the diameter of each halo,
each halo takes many decay events to form a visible shell, so
it takes "several hundred million years to form" the uranium shell, and thus
the decay rate has not changed during the formation, and
the earth is at least "several hundred million years" old.
Hi archaeologist, I understand you have abandoned the science threads, but I am going to answer for form sake, and for other readers of the forum.
you actually can't say that unless you think and can prove that the earth was created at the same time as the universe and all the stars and planets in it.
Actually, the universe is much older than the earth, as the earth appears to be formed from the debris of older stars that made heavy materials and then went nova.
This debris then would be the basis for forming the earth, the planets in the solar system and the sun,
Of course it would be possible for some debris from the universe landing on earth and being dated older than the earth, but that is not determining the age of the earth. For instance asteroids hitting the earth are dated to find an outside limit to the age of the earth: the earth formation would be younger than the remaining debris that constitutes the asteroids.
according to some theories, space particles formed and then joined together to create planets and gravity but they can't prove that nor can you prove that dating backwards is accurate.
In science nothing is proven. What we have are theories about how things came to be the way they are, based on our understanding of how things work (physics, chemistry, biology).
This results in an approximation of truth for what happened in the past.
What we can do is disprove concepts that are false, such as the young age of the earth, by finding evidence that contradicts it, such as evidence of biological life from over 30,000 years (convincingly older than any YEC earth I am aware of).
In science we discard falsified information, and this process refines our approximation of truth.
that is a bad comparison as isotopes are not sand nor do they need gravity to help them escape a body. nor are there other granals intheir way.
Yes, it is a bad analogy (all analogies are bad in one way or another), but that alone does not mean that radiometric dating is false or inaccurate.
What this is doing is comparing a (mostly) linear system of depletion of a material (sand) by a (relatively) constant rate of outflow to the radioactive depletion of a material (14C, say) by radioactive decay along an exponential curve.
A better analogy would be water flowing out a hole in a bucket, where the rate of flow is proportional to the depth of the water, as this results in an exponential curve, but this is relatively unimportant to the basic concept that each year there is less radioactive material in a sample than there was before.
but you are not verifying it, all one is using are modern ideas without any help fromancient sources to confirm. it is still all assumption, speculation and omits too many variables.
And yet the uranium halo is from an ancient source. It confirms the old age of the earth.
The reason that uranium halos confirm that the earth is old is because they cannot form the proper shells if the rate of decay is changed - that affects the alpha decay energy and that affects the distance the particle travels to make its point mark in the ring.
Each halo is made up of thousands\millions of point marks from individual alpha particles, and thus it take many many many decay events for each isotope in the decay change to form a complete halo pattern with a fully formed shell for each isotope.
I've been through the calculations, and no matter how you cut it, the formation of uranium halos takes much longer than any YEC age concept I am aware of -- hundreds of millions of years
still an assumption and ignores other possibilities for their existence. scientists are assuming that formation only goes their way and nothing or no one had a hand in their construction.
No, it is a valid conclusion based on the available evidence. The fact that evidence does not point in the direction you want is not evidence that it is false or wrong, it is evidence that what you want the evidence to show is a false concept.
There is no evidence of any other way. You can't blame science for ignoring evidence that does not exist.
let me illustrate it another way. i put salt in a jar and ask someone to date it and they come back saying because the glass is old and it takes 4 million years for salt to form to that specification, that i must have filled it 4-5,000,0000 years ago because all of their dating systems said so.
If you dated when the jar was sealed, then you would know when the salt was placed inside, and then you would know that the salt is necessarily older than that event.
And in the case of the uranium halo, the halo is the jar and the uranium is the salt, and the jar is made by the uranium as it ages. The age of the halo measures how long the uranium was in the jar.
This, of course, means that the uranium that was originally sealed in the rock where the halo formed was even older.
The earth is old. Empirical objective evidence invalidates all YEC ages I am aware of, so they are falsified concepts that need to be discarded.