Radiometric method for dating volcanic deposits

First off all I'm going to editorialize: This new paper is incredibly sensationalist and does not show any real issues with U-Pb dating in zircon (nor are the claimed effects real).Also the "poorly understood processes" are essentially the opinions of people who haven't read the relevant literature.By dating rocks of known ages which give highly inflated ages, geologists have shown this method can’t give reliable absolute ages.Many geologists claim that radiometric “clocks” show rocks to be millions of years old.Though they are very tiny, polonium radiohalos have a huge message that cannot be ignored.They point to a catastrophic origin for granites, consistent with the biblical timeframe for earth history and God’s judgment during the Flood.Say you have a newly dead tree that has lots and lots of Carbon 14 in it, and a newly dead rat that doesn't have as much.

Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old.In other words, could a plant 20,000 years ago have contained more or less carbon than a similar plant today, and thus throw off the calculation? Correct me if in wrong, but from what I understand of what others have been saying carbon dating has to do with the ratio of Carbon 14 and Carbon 12.Therefore the total amount that you have doesn't really matter.There are two strategies to figure out the amount of contaminant (called common lead or common strontium or etc depending on your method).A new study claims to have discovered the oldest piece of Earth yet 4.4BYO which puts this zircon crystal formation at only 160MY after the formation of the Earth.

Leave a Reply