Doubts radiometric dating

Rated 3.93/5 based on 743 customer reviews

Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric carbon-14 levels.Since the 1960s, scientists have started accounting for the variations by calibrating the clock against the known ages of tree rings.Radiometric dating is the method of establishing the age of objects by measuring the levels of radioisotopes in the sample. Carbon 14 is created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere.It decays to nitrogen 14 with a half life of 5730 years.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.However, this causes a problem for those who believe based on the Bible that life has only existed on the earth for a few thousand years, since fossils are found in rocks that are dated to be over 500 million years old by radiometric methods, and some fossils are found in rocks that are dated to be billions of years old.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.We are told that these methods are accurate to a few percent, and that there are many different methods.

But is radiometric dating really the objective hard science many believe it to be?Predictable: Since they’re repeatable, they’re also predictable.So aircraft designers and pilots can predict, given a certain set of circumstances precisely how much runway a plane will need to take off , and land; how much fuel will be burned, etc. Given the same conditions, the aircraft doesn’t need 2,000 feet of runway to take off one day, and 500 feet to take off the next day, and 3,000 feet another day.Accurate: Performance predictions consistently fall within a narrow range of expected values and don’t vary greatly.As a licensed pilot and certified flight instructor, I’ve bet my life, and the life of my students and passengers that I know exactly how a given plane will perform under given circumstances: how much runway it will take to take off, fly a specified distance and land at another airport. What inputs it takes to recover from a stall (that’s not a reference to the engine by the way) and spins. Anyone who has flown in a plane is betting the science of flight is a “hard science” with consistent predictable results.

Leave a Reply