Radioactive dating accuracy oil black transexual dating sites
Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in “lead” pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes.
One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or C ratio gets smaller.
When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result.
The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems.
Overall, the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing, so more C is being produced now than in the past.
This will make old things look older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully.
To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as: There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older “ages.” Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years.
Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating, points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.
There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks.
These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.