ALL SEX DATING
clear and disable history
- Whesly and andrhew webcam flirt4free
- tracye hutchins dating
- love dating sites cuba
- dating and money issues
- Private erotic chats
- rowupdating templatefield
- Hot girls in sex chat no cradit
- jocuri naruto dating sim
- gender role identity and dating behavior what is the relationship
- meryl streep dating jack nicholson
- dating dilemmas yahoo
- Xxx free taboo sex chat rooms
Radiometric dating is based on
What is less commonly known are any of the details of how the issue was settled: such as that the 4.5 billion year 'date' came from a single meteorite that was assumed to be the same age as the earth's core.
And since this favored 'date' is the only one that's trumpeted by the media it is the only date that many assume to be correct.
In many cases it is quite difficult to prove whether one method is superior to another: and in this regard, the only way of doing so is to closely examine how each method works and try to find fault with it.
Another problem that calls into question the credibility of radiometric dating is heat contamination.
For example, In 1973, in Alberta, Canada (near the town of Grand Prairie) a high voltage line fell which caused nearby tree roots to fossilize almost instantly.
In this regard, pro-evolution scientists are very selective about which dates they accept and which ones they reject: such as any date that is contrary to the Geological Time Chart -- to which all radiometric dates must fall in line with.
In this regard it should also be pointed out that for the theory of life from non-life, and/or from amoeba to jellyfish, to man to have any chance at all of being true, then the earth must be very old. can be summarized as follows: In other words, something in the past caused a significant amount of helium to build up inside these zircons (such as from a rapid decay episode of uranium), yet, in spite of the fact that helium has been observed to leak out readily from these zircons, it has not done so: simply because it hasn't had enough time to do so -- suggesting that the zircons themselves are only a few thousand years old."There is evidence to show ...
To do this they have selected a certain meteorite, which contained various types of lead (including lead 204, 206, 207 and 208) but no uranium, and they have assumed that this ratio is equivalent to the earth's original lead ratio.
They did this because it is almost certain that these lead isotopes were all present in large quantities when the earth was created.The third assumption is that the sample has remained in a closed system.This is necessary due to outside influences such as heat and groundwater that can seriously alter the original material.Therefore, if a scientist has strong beliefs about this topic, he or she will tend to be biased against any evidence that contradicts their beliefs with regard to the earth's reported age: of 4.5 billion years. that (the) half-lives (of uranium-thorium-lead) are not constant but vary with time. comes from the study of pleochroic haloes which form in a rock in the following way.For example, the 67 ( ) other methods of dating the earth, solar system, and/or universe. When a rock crystallises, the crystals of the minerals in the rock often enclose minute grains of other minerals which contain uranium and thorium.Although these eruptions were less than 200 years old, the radiometric "dates" obtained from them were 140 million to 2.96 billion years for one, and from 0 to 29 million years for the other -- depending upon the (ocean) depth at which the lava sample was obtained. This also brings up an important question: If radiometric dating methods are unable to produce the correct date in cases where the actual date of eruption is known, why should we believe that these same methods can produce accurate dates when the date of eruption is unknown?The point is simply this: radiometric dating is known to produce grossly erroneous dates when heat is involved in the formation or fossilization process.Therefore, in virtually every case, scientists do not know what the original condition of the rock was; and, even if they did know, they don't any more due to heat contamination, mixing, and leaching. Snelling in an article on this topic Note: As for the few cases where scientists do know what the "original" condition (or date of eruption) was, they still have not been able to come up with the correct "date" for the age of the rock without all sorts of fancy footwork and massaging of data.That's because radiometric dating (with the exception of Carbon 14) is almost always performed on igneous rocks (i.e. Also because, when different substances are in a liquid state, something known as mixing almost always takes place: meaning that whenever a liquid (or molten) rock is erupted out of the earth, both the mother and daughter elements will be "mixed" together, thus making it virtually impossible to determine the time that an eruption took place.When scientists at the University of Regina, Saskatchewan were asked what the results would be if these roots were dated by Potassium Argon method.Their response was that the results: Two well-documented examples of "heat contamination" are the 18 eruptions from two Hawaiian volcanoes.