Pros and cons of dating objects with carbon 14 articles
No geologist was present when the rocks were formed to see their contents, and no geologist was present to measure how fast the radioactive “clock” has been running through the millions of years that supposedly passed after the rock was formed.
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes.
When we look at sand in an hourglass, we can estimate how much time has passed based on the amount of sand that has fallen to the bottom.
They also measure the sand grains in the bottom bowl (the daughter isotope, such as lead-206 or argon-40, respectively).The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than today’s measured rate! As this article has illustrated, rocks may have inherited parent and daughter isotopes from their sources, or they may have been contaminated when they moved through other rocks to their current locations.Or inflowing water may have mixed isotopes into the rocks.This source already had both rubidium and strontium.To make matters even worse for the claimed reliability of these radiometric dating methods, these same basalts that flowed from the top of the Canyon yield a samarium-neodymium age of about 916 million years,5 and a uranium-lead age of about 2.6 billion years!Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt.Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (), yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks “work”!New evidence, however, has recently been discovered that can only be explained by the radioactive decay rates not having been constant in the past.9 For example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite ( yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years.Yet this view is based on a misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works.Part 1 (in the previous issue) explained how scientists observe unstable atoms changing into stable atoms in the present.