Radioactive dating accuracy oil dating younger girl conversation
Here's another fact: the largest motivation behind radiometric dating these days is not to prove evolution, but to find oil.
In order to do so, scientists must be able to determine not only the ages of rock strata but their thermal history as well.
I've tried googling for a YEC rebuttal to this article but I've drawn a blank.
This means that scientists have a huge economic incentive to make sure that their dating methods are reliable.
This is widely acknowledged in the scientific literature.
The number of such discordances is tiny compared to the corpus of dating results. A single point on an isochron plot can cost five hundred dollars or more.
Continuing the discussion from Scientific claims must meet scientific standards: Hi @john Z, I'm replying to your post in a separate thread here, because it veers wildly off-topic from the original discussion. In fact, when discordances are encountered, they generally are published because scientists want to study these discordances, to try and determine why they are discordant so that they can improve the accuracy of their results in the future, explore the limitations of the effectiveness of radiometric dating, and identify warning signs that can indicate when the resultant dates are likely to be in error.
I keep seeing YECs harping on and on and on about isochron discordances and dates that have to be changed. However, you must view these discordances in context. Now here's another fact about radiometric dating that you may not realise: it is expensive.
Take a read of the blog post, "Can Young-Earth Creationists Find Oil?
" on the Age of Rocks blog -- it explains it in considerable detail.