Carbon dating falacy

The main and obvious problem with these assumptions is that they are not valid. Every process in nature operates at a rate influenced by many different factors.If one of the factors changes, the rate is altered.Problems with Potassium-Argon: - As with the majority of the other methods, Potassium-Argon is calibrated to Uranium-Lead, which we have seen to be a faulty system.Any age given by the Potassium-Argon methods will be incorrect as it is matched with an incorrect system. - The decay process is an open system, and as Argon 40 is a gas, migration in and out of a Potassium mineral is quite common.Therefore any date achieved in this method will be in the margin of error because of a modulating amount of daughter component.This quote is support to my point: "Processes of rock alteration may render a volcanic rock useless for potassium-argon dating.The Uranium method is actually a compilation of a many methods.

Clementson stated that: Who would readily accept a method of dating when it is known and proven to be wildly inaccurate? It will not be admitted, in fact most likely denied, but the true method of dating which is always consulted is that of the Geologic Column (see article entitled, "Come, Let Us Reason In Circles Together").

Does radiometric dating provide the desperately needed 'proof' that evolutionists have long been searching for? In order to correctly understand the issue, you must come to an understanding of the process or mechanics behind the idea of radiometric dating.

There are several methods used, but in this small article, only two will be examined: - The Uranium-Thorium-Lead method - And the Potassium-Argon method Each of these methods rely upon the common fact that the parent component in a system (e.g., uranium) will gradually 'decay' into the daughter component (e.g., lead).

The daughter component is Argon 40, and the process has a half-life of 1.3 billion years.

Also, simultaneously, using the "beta decay" (emission of an electron and a neutrino) Potassium 40 decays into Calcium 4.

Search for carbon dating falacy:

carbon dating falacy-68carbon dating falacy-64

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

One thought on “carbon dating falacy”

  1. We promise to keep the information simple so that all can understand; and we promise to try to answer any questions that you may have concerning any problems in your meetings.