Dating 14 years Free interracial chat with women online

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,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.

These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains.

For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc.

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.

This also has to be corrected for.[2] Second, the ratio of C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible.

Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently.The strength of the Earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the Earth.Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Noah's Flood…, How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places? ), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages 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.

Leave a Reply