In the article by Leppert, we find: Hugh Miller generously provided me with a copy of the elemental analysis of one of their dinosaur fossils. More recently, scientists have been able to change the half-lives of some forms of radioactive decay in a laboratory by drastic amounts. You cannot predict when a given kernel will pop, or which kernels will pop before other kernels. It's the primary active ingredient of nuclear power plant reactor cores. Obtaining radiometric dates from Olduvai Gorge is difficult for several reasons, but one of the few dates that's considered solid comes from a specific layer of volcanic tuff called 'Tuff 1B'.
We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. Although I can find any number of references to this seemingly vital finding on the creationist sites, I can find almost no attempt to refute or explain this anomaly on serious science sites. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them. Thorium has a long half-life decays very slowly and is not easily moved out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. Radiometric dating methods are the strongest direct evidence that geologists have for the age of the Earth. A stable isotope will always remain as it is unless some external force changes it.
Different nuclides of the same element can have substantially different half-lives. What does exist are limits to the applicability of 14C dating techniques. It is not correct to state or imply from this evidence that the radiocarbon dating technique is thus shown to be generally invalid. There is simply no logical reason to throw this entire field of science out the window. Musk ox muscle was dated at 24,000 years, but hair was dated at 17,000 years. Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14 C to be measurable. There are essentially two parts in the process of radiocarbon dating through accelerator mass spectrometry.
It means that potassium can get into minerals quite easily, but argon can't. Therefore, we expect that when carbon-dating is applied to organisms that perished in the global flood, their estimated ages ~50,000 years will be roughly ten times larger than their true age ~5,000 years. This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. Based on this, he claims that radiometric dating methods don't produce consistent results, that geologists conceal radiometric dates which don't match what's expected, and that therefore the whole methodology of radiometric dating is worthless. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by any means whatever, without the express written consent of the author.
C14 is also formed continuously from N14 nitrogen-14 in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Science has several very reasonable explanations for levels of modern carbon in very old samples. And the result of this accepted method dates dinosaur fossils to around 68 million years old. Of course, the problem is that this process results in contamination with old carbon, making the sample appear older. While that same level of contamination if this is the explanation will add some error to the dating of some reasonably aged sample, the error will be small -- so long as the sample is not too old. C14 has a half life of 5730 years and is only good to date objects to 50,000 years or so.
Testing radiometric dating methods If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. 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. Although the half-life of some of them are more consistent with the evolutionary worldview of millions to billions of years, the assumptions used in radiometric dating put the results of all radiometric dating methods in doubt. For example, if a series of radiocarbon dates is taken from different levels in a stratigraphic sequence, Bayesian analysis can be used to evaluate dates which are outliers, and can calculate improved probability distributions, based on the prior information that the sequence should be ordered in time. The mass number doesn't change, but the atomic number goes up by 1. Any interposing material would have interfered with the detection of radioactivity, since the beta particles emitted by decaying 14 C are so weak that half are stopped by a 0. But the fact that such helium is present also indicates that a great deal of radioactive decay has happened; a lot of uranium atoms have decayed into lead, producing the helium.
However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results. It is not always possible to recognize re-use. Creationists are only interested in debunking radiocarbon. The stump of a very old bristlecone pine. Another possible avenue is C13, which has a small but non-zero neutron absorption cross section. It doesn't take much contamination to spoil a sample with near-zero quantity of C14.
Frost writes externally for various websites. That last one is more important than it sounds. However, again it's important to remember that we're dealing with assumptions, and we always have to keep in mind that our assumptions may be wrong. These curves are described in more detail. Alternate source of C14 production.
Since the surface ocean is depleted in 14 C because of the marine effect, 14 C is removed from the southern atmosphere more quickly than in the north. All dating methods that support this theory are embraced, while any evidence to the contrary, e. Other radiometric dating methods such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium are used for such purposes by those who believe that the earth is billions of years old. This involves exposing areas of weakness and error in the conventional interpretation of radiocarbon results as well as suggesting better understandings of radiocarbon congruent with a Biblical, catastrophist, Flood model of earth history. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive a from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. The results varied widely though consistently with a of errors in the measurements , and included multiple date ranges of 1σ confidence that did not overlap with each other. I found several good sources, but none that seemed both complete enough to stand alone and simple enough for a nongeologist to understand them.