Radiocarbon dating dvd
The same is true for dating methods using other isotopes.” In fact, if stars exploded and sent radioactive elements out into space, “this long period of interstellar residency would see the extinction of short and medium-lived isotopes, such as polonium since they would decay to lead long before reaching the earth.” “The measured thorium and neodymium ratios of stars in our stellar neighborhood, if accepted at face value, strongly indicate that no significant amount of time has passed since the creation of these isotopes.Virtually all the initial thorium is still there, meaning not enough time has passed for significant decay of thorium.Creationists do admit that radioactive decay has occurred, but “it is important to understand the simple, fundamental principle behind all dating methods, and why they are not able to produce objective, absolute dates…The fatal flaw is that all scientific measurements are made in the present, whereas a date relates to a time in the past.We cannot go back into the past to measure all the parameters we need in order to do the dating calculation.The three main assumptions that affect the results of radiometric dating are: 1) the rate of decay has always been constant, 2) there has been no contamination (no movement of elements into or out of the object over time), and 3) we can determine how much daughter element there was to begin with.[ii] There are many test results that make the reliability of these dating techniques very questionable.[iii] Naturalists try to explain these questionable results, but still can’t adequately explain them from their worldview.[iv] Evidence from “as far back as 1971” may show “that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.”[v] Naturalists even admit that radiocarbon dating does not work on living mussels because of the lack of new carbon in that environment.So what other situations and conditions create unreliable results that we must also throw out the dating because of?[xxiv] Naturalistic scientists have used many methods to try to figure out when the supernovae created the majority of uranium, and naturalists say “that the results from the various methods used are independently derived, making the age determinations that much more reliable.
It seems it is impossible to ever know what were the initial amounts of U-238 and Pb-206.Hence, all these parameters must be assumed—always.There is no other way.”[i] Naturalists still make assumptions even if they try to say that they don’t have to know initial conditions.So geologists research how other geologists have interpreted the other rocks in the area in order to find out what sort of dates they would expect.Then they invent a story to explain the numbers as part of the geological history of the area.”[xvii] One evolutionary researcher said “For this complex, laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence.” In other words “you don’t just accept a laboratory date without question. .”[xviii] A lot of radioactive decay does seem to be observed as evidenced by radiohalos and other marks.