posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 12:41 AM
originally posted by: Seede
I love the way you also twist and turn. Your quote -" Is there some probability involved? absolutely, so you get a range due to the +/-" Then you do
have a range of error? Is that not what I said?
No, what you are implying is this
Range =/= exact timestamp; therefore, radiometric dating cannot be consider any more accurate than the bible.
This is untrue. There is some probability involved in radiometric dating when dealing with decay rates, though the fluctuation is very small and is
Now let's add in another point behind science. The ability to make predictions. You could pluck another crystal from that same pluton, say a zircon
crystal, run a uranium isotope test and you will end up with a date that agrees with the K-AR dating from the feldspar. To be able to successfully
satisfy that prediction shows the method is accurate. This has been done time and time again. The dating methods agree with each other. This means it
Now another example, lets say we have a metamorphosed granite pluton, called a gneiss. Now during the mountain building process, we have a granite
intrusion known as a dike or sill form into the pluton. By default the intrusion of granite is younger than the rock it is crossing. Now, we can make
the prediction that we should get a younger age radiometric dating the granite from the gneiss. Once again we see from these types of experiments that
we consistently meet those predictions. We know how fast the sea floor spreads, subduction zones, mountain building processes. Geology is very well
understood and there are several other factors that corroborate radiometric dates. It does not, however, support a global flood.
As for how we are able to predict what the chemical compound of the rock should be, look up Bowen's reaction series for a basic understanding, at
least for igneous rocks.
edit on 5-9-2014 by Cypress because: (no reason given)