It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by: Starwars51: The great flaw with the religous creatinist movement (IMO) is that it attempts to fight and discredit a group of people who do not disagree with them ... Thus making only themselves look like the retards.
The Accuracy of Radiometric Dating. Though work on radiometric dating first started around 1910, relatively slow progress was made before the late 1940s. Many dating methods have now been tested and retested for over fifty years. Radiation detectors measure the half-lives of radioactive isotopes either directly by counting the number of atoms decaying in a given amount of time from a known amount of the parent material, or by measuring the ratio of daughter-to-parent atoms in a sample that originally consisted of parent atoms only. While the number of atoms to decay in fifty years may be a small fraction of the total, extremely precise counting of the daughter atoms can be accomplished.
Originally posted by Rren
You, IMO just did what you accuse creationists of, and iI would also like to add that the creationist movement has many theories and you cannot lump them all together like you did. This is from an old-earth creationist:Roger C. Wiens, PhD
So as you ponder this science, ask yourself, if energy cannot be created, if something cannot come from nothing, then how do you explain the creation of your GOD?
Originally posted by BigTrain
Why dont you clarify why you think I have betrayed my own knowledge?
If you dont care enough to research that question or you dont have the education behind you to know the answer, then how in the world can you come on this board, ask people for answers and then berate them and accuse them of having an agenda when you dont even care about the ways, methods or techniques that are involved in this topic. Next time, pick up a book and learn something before you accuse me and others of being totally wrong when you dont know half of what science is about. Ill say it for the last time and im done with you and this topic.
And again, Im sure it is the scientists who have about 1,000 times more knowledge than you, ...
All radiometric dating is based on this very simple equation and the exponentially decreasing curve. In other words, N is the present abundance of parent atoms, the original abundance of parent atoms equals N0, t is time, and k is a constant related to the half-life (the time it takes for half of the parent atoms of a radioactive isotope to decay). The simplicity of this equation combined with the fact that it works with many different dating methods produces great confidence in its reliability.
By Roger C. Wiens, PhD.
However, a small complication remains. One cannot always assume that no daughter atoms existed to begin with, so the initial amount of the daughter product must be determined. Each dating method solves this problem in its own way. Particular types of dating work better in some rocks; others perform better in other rocks, depending on the rocks’ composition and age. By Roger C. Wiens, PhD.
Radiometric dating has proven reliable from relatively short timescales of seconds, minutes, days, and years (calibrated with laboratory clocks), to a few thousand years (cross-calibrated with other reliable age indicators), to many millions of years (cross-comparison performed between dating methods).
Radiometric dates agree with astronomical timescales.5 In astronomy, decay rate constancy can be tested easily by studying stars at varying distances. Since these distances represent different light travel times (hence different astronomical eras), astronomers can observe whether or not decay rates were slower or faster at different eras. Their research reveals constancy, and constancy confirms established radiometric dates.
Most rocks are, for practical purposes, closed systems. Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (i.e., rocks are not isolated from their surroundings and as a result have lost or gained some isotopes used for dating). From an extremely technical perspective this point may be true—perhaps one atom out of a trillion has leaked out of nearly all rocks—but such a change makes an unmeasurably small change in the result. Many books written over the past forty years detail the precise conditions under which dating mechanisms work
IMO, your assuming science got it wrong, while in my laymans opinion your question is valid, but you offer no proof. And it appears that the scientific community has.