Are radiometric dating methods reliable

6854933580_2c8b688306_z

He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition.

He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

These are often characterised as the norm, rather than the exception.

I thought it would be useful to present an example where the geology is simple, and unsurprisingly, the method does work well, to show the quality of data that would have to be invalidated before a major revision of the geologic time scale could be accepted by conventional scientists.

Levels of carbon-14 become difficult to measure and compare after about 50,000 years (between 8 and 9 half lives; where 1% of the original carbon-14 would remain undecayed).

It is an accurate way to date specific geologic events.

Geochronologists do not claim that radiometric dating is foolproof (no scientific method is), but it does work reliably for most samples.

It is these highly consistent and reliable samples, rather than the tricky ones, that have to be falsified for "young Earth" theories to have any scientific plausibility, not to mention the need to falsify huge amounts of evidence from other techniques.

Carbon-14 cannot be used to date biological artifacts of organisms that did not get their carbon dioxide from the air.

This rules out carbon dating for most aquatic organisms, because they often obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved carbonate rock.

Wiens has a Ph D in Physics, with a minor in Geology.

You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!