By | 25.04.2019

Why is carbon dating not used to determine the age of a rock with

Radiometric Dating & the Age of the Earth: Bible History vs. Secular Science

Geologists do not use carbon-based radiometric dating to determine the age of rocks. Carbon dating only works for objects that are younger than about 50, years, and most rocks of interest are older than that. Carbon dating is used by archeologists to date trees, plants, and animal remains; as well as human artifacts made from wood and leather; because these items are generally younger than 50, years. Carbon is found in different forms in the environment mainly in the stable form of carbon and the unstable form of carbon Over time, carbon decays radioactively and turns into nitrogen. A living organism takes in both carbon and carbon from the environment in the same relative proportion that they existed naturally.

The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones. So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash.

These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets , researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.

Using the basic ideas of bracketing and radiometric dating, researchers have determined the age of rock layers all over the world. This information has also helped determine the age of the Earth itself. While the oldest known rocks on Earth are about 3. Based on the analysis of these samples, scientists estimate that the Earth itself is about 4.

In addition, the oldest known moon rocks are 4. Since the moon and the Earth probably formed at the same time, this supports the current idea of the Earth's age. You can learn more about fossils, dinosaurs, radiometric dating and related topics by reading through the links below. Radiometric dating isn't the only method of determining the age of rocks.

Other techniques include analyzing amino acids and measuring changes in an object's magnetic field.

Scientists have also made improvements to the standard radiometric measurements. For example, by using a laser, researchers can measure parent and daughter atoms in extremely small amounts of matter, making it possible to determine the age of very small samples [source: This belief in long ages for the earth and the evolution of all life is based entirely on the hypothetical and non-empirical Theory of Evolution.

All dating methods that support this theory are embraced, while any evidence to the contrary, e. Prior to radiometric dating, evolution scientists used index fossils a. A paleontologist would take the discovered fossil to a geologist who would ask the paleontologist what other fossils searching for an index fossil were found near their discovery.

If it sounds like circular reasoning, it is because this process in reality is based upon circular reasoning. The process of using index fossils is describes by the late Creationist author and Ph. Henry Morris as follows:. All radiometric dating methods use this basic principle to extrapolate the age of artifacts being tested.

These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock, and inferring an age based on this ratio. This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance say, uranium gradually decays to the daughter substance say, lead , so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. While there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, e. Geologists assert that generally speaking, older dates are found deeper down in the geologic column, which they take as evidence that radiometric dating is giving true ages, since it is apparent that rocks that are deeper must be older.

But even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column which is open to question , this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later. Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down.

A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger. Other possible confounding variables are the mechanisms that can alter daughter-to-parent ratios.

We can see that many varieties of minerals are produced from the same magma by the different processes of crystallization, and these different minerals may have very different compositions.

It is possible that the ratio of daughter to parent substances for radiometric dating could differ in the different minerals. Clearly, it is important to have a good understanding of these processes in order to evaluate the reliability of radiometric dating. Other confounding factors such as contamination and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community, but are not taken into consideration when the accuracy and validity of these dating methods are examined.

The following quotation from Elaine G. Kennedy addresses this problem. Contamination and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community. For example, if a magma chamber does not have homogeneously mixed isotopes, lighter daughter products could accumulate in the upper portion of the chamber. If this occurs, initial volcanic eruptions would have a preponderance of daughter products relative to the parent isotopes.

Such a distribution would give the appearance of age.

Why is carbon dating not used to determine the age of a rock

As the magma chamber is depleted in daughter products, subsequent lava flows and ash beds would have younger dates. Such a scenario does not answer all of the questions or solve all of the problems that radiometric dating poses for those who believe the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood.

It does suggest at least one aspect of the problem that could be researched more thoroughly. The problems inherent in radiometric dating often cause them to be so unreliable that they contradict one another rather than validating each other.

It would really be nice if geologists would just do a double blind study sometime to find out what the distributions of the ages are. In practice, geologists carefully select what rocks they will date, and have many explanations for discordant dates, so it's not clear how such a study could be done, but it might be a good project for creationists.

Radiometric dating

There is also evidence that many anomalies are never reported. There are so many complicated phenomena to consider like this that it calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into question.

Only then can you gauge the accuracy and validity of that race. We need to observe when the race begins, how the race is run are there variations from the course, is the runner staying within the course, are they taking performance enhancing drugs, etc. All bases must be covered if we are going to accurately time the race.

Radioactive Carbon Dating

This is the major flaw in radiometric dating, e. Secondly, you must have an observable time span so we can be certain nothing has affected the amount of the radioactive element being measured, e.

Finally, we need to be certain about the end or finish point.

Radiometric or Absolute Rock Dating

This is some finite point in the future. Without an accurate starting time, an observable span in between, and an observable finish, our measurement cannot be deemed accurate. The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

2 comments

  1. Vijora

    I consider, that you are not right. I am assured.

    Reply
  2. Fekree

    In it something is. I agree with you, thanks for the help in this question. As always all ingenious is simple.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email will not be published. Required fields are marked *