Fossils radiometric dating

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

How Do Scientists Determine the Age of Dinosaur Bones?

A Summary of the Million Dollar RATE Research Project Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth Introduction: Rocks and fossils do not come with dates on them. In fact, the very concept of strata representing long ages does not come from the rock strata themselves. That concept began with eighteenth-century French naturalist Georges Cuvier, picked up steam with Charles Lyell, and it has been in vogue ever since.

This is despite the fact fossils radiometric dating it causes more problems for interpreting rock strata than it solves. And today we know through lab experiments and natural disasters such as the eruption of Mt.

Helens that major layering of rock strata can happen catastrophically in a short period of time. The resulting rock strata may harbor fossils from a particular habitat area or ecosystem, but do not represent a particular age or era.

Why else do we find fossils radiometric dating fossils on the tops of all the major mountain ranges? An examination of sedimentary rocks worldwide shows a striking consistency with the unimaginably massive Flood that wiped out whole environments. It caused massive sedimentary layering and sorting and fossilizing of the creatures buried therein. Also, remember that modern disasters on a smaller scale like Mount St. Yes, we all have been inundated with teaching that rocks are dated in the millions and billions of years, but are they really?

What is the real science behind dating of rocks? Do they really NEED to be millions or billions of years old? Actually the assignment of a certain fossils radiometric dating of millions of years to a rock formation fossils radiometric dating not derive fossils radiometric dating the strata itself.

The standard Geological Column became the reference point, even though it does not appear anywhere on earth except in text books.

And the ages assigned to fossils radiometric dating layers were derived from long age evolutionary assumptions — not from the scientific facts, — as the column was fossils radiometric dating long before we even had radiometric dating. Yet the column and its assumptions are used along with index fossils to assign dates to sedimentary rock layers and which in turn are used to date any fossil in that rock layer.

What we see around the earth are huge layers of sedimentary rock filled fossils radiometric dating dead things. Unfortunately, uniformitarianism has gripped geology academia and no other viewpoints are allowed.

This evolutionary assumption has become a naturalistic religion, an ideology established already before Darwin published his book in 1859. Since the early 20th century, Radioisotope dating has been used to bolster the vast time spans ascribed to the geologic record. However, research by geologist John Woodmorappe a pen name revealed that the radiometric methods used today were actually hand-picked to coincide with the dates previously assumed for the geologic column diagrams.

These dating methods rely on a series of assumptions about the amounts of the parent-daughter elements, and a constant rate of decay. Radioisotope dating, using the trace amounts of radioactive elements within the rock, was quickly accepted as proof the earth is millions and millions of years old. So what does radiometric dating really do?

How does it work? It has been accepted that an igneous rock is formed when it first cools down from a molten or semi-molten state, which may include a variety of elements, including radioactive ones.

The Radioactive elements decay from heavier larger atomic elements parent into smaller atomic elements daughter that are more stable. For example, Uranium U decays into Lead Pb. This was confirmed in 1905. For fossils radiometric dating last 100 years we have been able to measure the decay rate, and during this time it has been very steady, very consistent. This method is used only on metamorphic and igneous rocks — not sedimentary rocks which are rocks laid down fossils radiometric dating water — and is where the fossils are primarily found.

The radio-dating calculations are based on a series of Assumptions: 1 The decay rate has not changed. A 100 year sample of decay rates is inadequate when talking about millions of years. We do not know for sure if the rate of decay was the same 1000 years ago, let alone 10,000 years ago, or millions of years ago. Has there been contamination into the rock of either extra amounts of parent or daughter elements?

What if extra lead leached into the rock? Or U washed out? This is assumed to be immaterial, but can change the end results drastically. What is the real initial percentages of the U parent and Pb lead daughter elements? To assume the rock starts with only U and no Pb is a big assumption.

Isochron dating, which relies on fossils radiometric dating rock samples, is an attempt to correct this, but still has underlying assumptions based on 1 and 2 above. Examples of Problems with Radiometric dating of rocks: Grand Canyon Lava flows: Sedimentary rocks make up the layers of the Grand Canyon and these are not dateable by radiometric dating.

All the canyon layers are ocean bottom sediments, filled with fossils of ocean-dwelling creatures and plants almost a mile high from top to bottom. The Cardenas Basalt bottom layer below the Cambrian explosion is usually dated with Rhobidium -Strontium and calculated to be about 1 billion years old. Much later after the Grand canyon was already formed, igneous rocks were formed from a volcano on top of the canyon, that Indians saw erupt, only about 1000 years ago. The volcano lava flows have Indian artifacts in them, and go over the canyon walls.

These rocks were dated using the same method in the lab and were assigned an age of 1. How can the very top, volcanic rock be older than the very bottom layer basalt rock?

Even evolutionists admit that those Indian artifacts are not 1. This is a real and common problem with radiometric dating techniques. Etna — erupted 2100 years ago, but rocks were dated 25 million years ago. Ngaurhoe, New Zealand — erupted in 1949, 1954, but rocks dated 275,000 yrs old. Etna basalt, Sicily, erupted in 1971, but rocks were dated 140,000 to 350,000 yrs old.

Helens erupted in 1980, but rocks were dated up to 2. ALL of the samples taken from volcanic eruptions of known times fossils radiometric dating dates are carefully collected and sent to the labs. Then they ALWAYS come back dated at 100,000s to millions of years old. NEVER do they come back from the lab, with the note: Too fossils radiometric dating to measure.

Fossils radiometric dating is a definite pattern. Not very scientifically consistent is it? This has been known for many decades. It is the prime reason many scientists have had doubts about radiometric dating all along. RATE found 3 indicators that strongly indicate decay rates changed in the past, all pointing to a young age for the rocks and for the earth. As the U decays into Lead, it goes through various stages and gives off alpha particles which become Helium atoms. This Helium He is released into the crystal and rock.

Helium atoms are fossils radiometric dating thin and can seep fossils radiometric dating solid rock. But even for He, this takes some time. The speed of Helium diffusion through solid rock has been measured. If long -age evolutionary guesses of the original amount of U are correct, then we can calculate how much Helium should have been produced and then seeped out of the crystal. If the granite is billions of years old, only the most recent Helium would still be trying to work its way out of the rock.

So there would be very little Helium left in the rock. BUT, if the rock is only thousands of years old not billionsthere should still be plenty of He still trapped in the solid granite rock. What do we actually find? What does the data basis of true science show? There is enough Helium fossils radiometric dating in the rocks, to account for an age for Earth of only you guessed it!

The standard age of the fossils radiometric dating is said to be 1. Plenty of time for the process to reach steady state by uniformitarian standards. All this time as Helium a very light element is given off, it slips around the other atoms and leaves the crystal lattice.

The hotter the crystal, the faster the He escapes into the surrounding rock. As the Zircon crystals were studied, it was apparent there was a lot of He still in the crystal — in fact much too much — if this was going on for a billion years. Measurements in a blind experiment were taken that showed how much Helium should be left after certain amounts of time, at various heat levels of the rock and the diffusion rate of He leaving the crystal. Predictions were made for the diffusion rates based on two different relationships — one for an evolutionary time frame of billions of years, and one for a Creationist time frame of thousands of years.

The results from an independent lab showed the diffusion rate to be practically the same as the predicted creationist rate. Extremely close — excellent results for the young-earth creationist time frame, and not fossils radiometric dating all what the evolutionary time frame predicted.

This is proof that those deep earth rocks with large amounts helium still in the zircon crystals were only thousands of years old.

They cannot be a billion years old, or close to that figure. If you believe in predictive, quantifiable science, then you cannot believe in 1. In order to get the level of helium found in the rocks, there had fossils radiometric dating have been a lot of radioactive decay. But the results show also that there was not only very a rapid decay episode, fossils radiometric dating the helium still in the crystal, shows it happened in the recent past.

Recent as in thousands of years ago, not millions let alone billions. Samples came from several granites. Halos are a microscopic spherical pattern of damage in the crystalline structure of the granite.

The damage is caused by high energy alpha particles that are emitted by radiometric decay of the Uranium in the rock. Particles like tiny bullets pierce the rock and leave a spherical pattern, outward from the U atoms.

Polonium is very fossils radiometric dating, and decays quickly. Some can decay in 3 minutes, some a few days. Po halos are also found in all rocks and in large numbers. How can they be there in large numbers? This conundrum can only be explained if there were one or more rapid changes in U decay rates. The large numbers of these Po halo finds do indicate very quick changes in fossils radiometric dating rates and that the rocks cannot be millions and millions of years old.

Again, the observable science fits the Creation model and not the uniformitarian model. Carbon 14 or radiocarbon is an entirely different method fossils radiometric dating dating materials in the earth.

It is only used on material that was once alive. Bones, flesh, plants, and any remains that are not entirely fossilized into rock, is what C-14 can be used on. It is only good for a dating back with any confidence to less than 80,000 years.

This is because C-14 the radioactive parent element has a half life of only 5,730 years. C-14 is from the atmosphere and becomes part of the food chain.

As plants take in carbon dioxide, the C-14 is the carbon atom, instead of the normal and stable C-12. It is everywhere and all through the food chain, such that all living things as well as the atmosphere, have about the same amount of carbon-14 inside their living tissue. While the C-14 is replenished by breathing and eating, the C-14 already in the body is beta-decaying back to nitrogen N-14, and a steady state is held, matching the amount of C-14 in the body with the amount in the atmosphere.

However once a plant or animal dies, it stops ingesting new C-14. The existing C-14 in the body continues to decay, reducing the percentage of C-14 to C-12 in the physical remains.

Again, radio-carbon dating is only used on samples that were once alive, and is typically good for only ages up to 80,000 years with any reliability. It was never used to indicate millions of years of age for fossils or rocks or anything else. Evolutionists never use C-14 on samples they believe to be millions of years old. Yet samples of rocks believed to be millions of years old, do contain tiny microscopic fragments of shells, bone, graphite wood and other organic materials.

Marble is metamorphosed limestone calcium carbonate and has been studied for other reasons many fossils radiometric dating. The compositional analysis of its contents from these studies have been published in many scientific journals.

These studies always fossils radiometric dating some amount of C-14 in the details that should not be therebut it is recorded — just not commented on in the publications. Because of these observations, the RATE Team collected samples of coal Metamorphosed plant remains from deep mines from all over the earth.

Each one is thought to be hundreds of millions of years old, and therefore should be C-14 dead. These samples were sent to independent labs for C-14 dating. EVERY ONE of the samples was dated to be only thousands of years old based on the C-14 content that was still there — in EACH AND EVERY SAMPLE.

This occurs despite the assumption that the surrounding rock was supposed to be millions of fossils radiometric dating old. Bones of dinosaurs were also dated, as well as petrified wood. EVERY sample contains C-14. In fact, fossil samples from a large spectrum of the fossil record were also tested. EVERY ONE contains C-14 indicating an age in the thousands — NOT millions of years old.

Diamonds from deep mines were also tested. Samples of industrial diamonds from around the world were also tested. Since they are so dense, fossils radiometric dating are not susceptible to internal contamination.

And yet EVERY one had C-14 detectable. If DEEP-EARTH Diamonds contain C-14, it is truly impossible for this planet to be in the millions and billions of years in age.

This is real observable science. These are repeatable, verifiable results from experimental science. Modern genetics and DNA have already shown there is a Creator — that evolution is not true — And this confirms it. And all of these methods give maximum dates that are that are not in the billions of years and are totally incompatible with evolutionary time spans. Thus, the nineteenth-century old age assumptions are in serious trouble. In fact, the modern findings of jumbled dinosaur and marine-life graveyards all over the earth, soft tissue in dinosaur bones, as well as the C-14 mentioned above, all make the old-earth age beliefs look very wrong.

Laetoli foot prints in Africa and the Paluxy river footprints in Texas and in the wrong sequences based on evolutionary assumptions. All the many inconsistencies simply make the million year old age of rocks and strata untenable. And yes, if the obvious conclusion is that there is a Creator and the Bible can be trusted — it does have deep spiritual repercussions.

References: Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by L. Chaffin Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. Donald DeYoung Examine the physical evidence for a young earth. Understand the findings of the RATE project. DeYoung authored this non-technical book in order to equip the layperson to defend scientific six-day creation and fossils radiometric dating modern dating techniques. For more than five years, the RATE team labored examining modern dating techniques and found that these techniques do not support an earth that is billions of years old.

The relevance and processes of helium diffusion, fission tracks, and methods of radioisotope dating are described in a way that the attentive reader can understand. Long before Madam Curie and the invention of radiation detectors.

Fossils radiometric dating of course well before the billion year age of the earth was debunked. Perhaps you could give more information on this c14 dating of fossils?

I could understand if perhaps one or two people are now lost in history so to speak…but I see you also mention there are MANY such examples… which is really lucky because then its obviously well documented what they were, what data came back, who done the analysis and more importantly WHY they ALL done the analysis without question when they all knew c14 is not present in fossils.

See heres an example of a creationist paper that can be reviewed and both the raw data, the testing method, the results and absolutely everything can be reviewed … I looked around online on sciencemag, pubmed and other creationist sources and found no such information.

So since you published this article obviously you succeeded to find the information where I failed. There are lots of examples of C14 found in dino bones. The most well known example was in 1990. This includes documentation of an Allosaurus bone sample that was sent to The University of Arizona Tucson to be carbon dated. The result was sample B at 16,120 years.

The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples. C14 is used on bones and buried plant and firewood samples all the time from anthropological digs.

The dino bones were blind samples. The labs were not told these were Dino bone fragments, but the labs test bones and partially fossilized bones like this all the time. C14 is only good for maximum dates of 80,000 years or so. But every time someone does test for C14 in Dino bone fragments — its always found. But more importantly you also did not comment on the main points of the article here. The assumptions of long age dating techniques fossils radiometric dating U-Pb have been shown to be wrong.

Here is an article by an independent research group that explains C14 dating and its fossils radiometric dating, as well as their procedures for testing dinosaur bone samples — not just for C14 but also for Collagen. Since 2005, soft tissue finds in dinosaur bones, not just T-Rex, but also from Triceratops and Hadrosaur bones are becoming much more publicized, in a variety of scientific journals, including SCIENCE NEWS.

The soft tissue includes not just proteins like collagen, but also apparent red corpuscles inside a small vein-like structure. The entire story of dinosaurs going extinct 65 million years ago is completely disintegrating. Note: Collagen is a protein found exclusively in animals. It is the main component of connective tissue, and is the most abundant protein in mammals. Collagen, in the form of elongated fibrils, is typically found in fibrous tissues such as tendons, ligaments as well as the cornea, cartilage, and bones.

We asked you for the power point presentation because it was so informative and felt that it could be spread around to our large email list!!! My suggestion would be the next time you make the presentation that you would take a video and send segments to youtube!!! John Baumgardner, who investigated the radiocarbon thing for a long time while he was a Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico member.

He collected over ninety reports in 14C radiometrics peer-reviewed journal articles which revealed a trade secret- they had such a problem finding natural sources fossils radiometric dating 14C-dead carbon for equipment calibration that they settled for using material that gave low, uniform-level results.

This prevalence of 14C in supposedly ancient samples is repeatable, verifiable proof that our planet cannot be millions of years old. As far as I am aware, there are multiple methods, and therefore, a variety can be used in order to verify the age. You can NOT use any other radiometric dating technique including U-Pb on fossils or the sedimentary rock that they are found in. The long age methods can only be used in igneous rock, and metamorphic rock. These ages have repeatedly been shown to be wrong due to the wrong assumptions.

Please review the concepts above.

How is absolute dating used to determine the age of fossils?

Absolute dating is used to determine a precise age of a fossil by using radiometric dating to measure the decay of isotopes, either within the fossil or more often the rocks associated with it. ... So, often layers of volcanic rocks above and below the layers containing fossils can be dated to provide a date range for the fossil containing rocks.

Relative Dating, Index Fossils, and Radiometric Dating

How did scientists use index fossils before radiometric dating?

Prior to radiometric dating, evolution scientists used index fossils a. k. a. relative dating to ascertain the age of their discoveries. A paleontologist would take the discovered fossil to a geologist who would ask the paleontologist what other fossils (searching for an index fossil) were found near their discovery.

How do geologists date rocks and fossils?

Using relative and radiometric dating methods, geologists are able to answer the question: how old is this fossil? This page has been archived and is no longer updated Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods

Why is radiometric dating important in geology?

By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant source of information about the ages of fossils and the deduced rates of evolutionary change. Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts.

How Old Is This Fossil? -- Fossil Formation and Radiometric Dating in a Biblical Perspective

How do you determine the age of a fossil?

Absolute dating is used to determine a precise age of a fossil by using radiometric dating to measure the decay of isotopes, either within the fossil or more often the rocks associated with it. The majority of the time fossils are dated using relative dating techniques.

What is absolute dating in geology?

Absolute Dating. Absolute dating is used to determine a precise age of a rock or fossil through radiometric dating methods. This uses radioactive minerals that occur in rocks and fossils almost like a geological clock.

How do scientists date rocks and fossils?

Scientists use two approaches to date rocks and fossils. Relative age dating is used to determine whether one rock layer (or the fossils in it) are older or younger than another base on their relative position: younger rocks are positioned on top of older rocks.

What is the difference between absolute age dating and relative age dating?

Relative age dating is used to determine whether one rock layer (or the fossils in it) are older or younger than another base on their relative position: younger rocks are positioned on top of older rocks. Absolute age dating (or, radiometric dating) determines the age of a rock based on how much radioactive material it contains.

Related posts: