Xxx free conversatiom chat - Radiometric dating becomes impossible when

One expert admitted: Or consider the statement of an evolutionist who didn’t agree with the radiometric dating (using five different radiometric techniques) of Australia’s “Mungo Man”, thinking it placed humans in Australia too early.

By “objective, hard science” I mean science that is measurable, repeatable, predictable, consistent and accurate.

For instance I would could consider the physics of flight a “hard science.” Here’s how those terms apply to the performance of an aircraft: Measurable: Flight parameters such as take off and landing distance, fuel burn, etc. Repeatable: Given the same initial conditions, those parameters should be the same regardless of who performs the operations.

They know that radiometric dating is not, and in fact cannot be the precise science they want you to believe it is.

Consider: In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (Potassium-Argon) age it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.

That there are different methods of determining weight is irrelevant to the fact that your weight is a single number, not a different number based on the method used.

So if you in fact weigh 175 lbs, you would not expect one method to give you 50 lbs, another to give 250 and yet another to give you 388 lbs.

And the differences can be quite dramatic: Basalt – a type of volcanic rock – dated by K-Ar to 45 million years old, while unfossilized wood entombed in the basalt is dated to 45 thousand years old by Carbon14 dating.[3] Or the indisputable example of rock formed during the Mt Saint Helens eruption in 1980.

We know the age of those rocks because humans were there to observe the formation. Why this cavalier attitude toward the inaccuracy of all radiometric dating methods?

Predictable: Since they’re repeatable, they’re also predictable.

Tags: , ,