Non radiometric dating methods
This doesn't therefore make these tools completely worthless; it just means that sometimes, they get it wrong—but when properly applied, the techniques will give us the correct answer the vast majority of the time.—The next example is much more tantalizing because it purportedly shows two wildly divergent dates One problem with this quote: It doesn't appear to actually exist—much like God, I might add! Secondly, none of the radiocarbon dates for mammoths given in that table are 44,000 or 29,500. One is referred to as a baby mammoth, while the other is simply referred to as a mammoth; one is described as being potentially contaminated by glycerine, while the other is not.
Nowhere does the cited study appear to contain this particular sentence. So not only is the quote a fabrication but the information contained in it is too. On top of that, the two samples were collected And note that these dates are presented in this table on page 30 of the study—the specific page referenced by Eric Hovind as the source of this quote—so what is going on here?
The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank.
Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years 'old' from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time."Once again, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this discrepancy, and this doesn't justify a wholesale dismissal of radiometric dating. Now you might be saying at this point: If we can't use these dating methods on certain types of rock or animal, it seems to me that they're just not trustworthy.
Perhaps he's just too busy polluting the internet with his mental diarrhea to do a bit of research and reading?
—Arguably the magnum opus of creationist efforts to refute radiometric dating is what's known as the RATE project, short for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.
Greg Neyman of Old Earth Ministries—a Christian organization, I might add—points out the very simple problem underlying this study:". Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. The seals feed off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone.
When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C-14.""This is the well-known reservoir effect . The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the [ocean] bottom for a few thousand years before surfacing.
Rather than the dating techniques being flawed, perhaps it's "If a recent lava flow, a recent eruption, where we know the true age of the rock from observation or historical evidence gets the answer wrong using the Potassium-Argon method, how can we trust them on ancient rocks when we don't have the historical documentation? Try tearing out a page from your Bible and rolling a joint with that shit, and then come and talk to me."Another Devastating Failure For Long-Age Geology?
During his lecture, he shows this slide which features five examples of the known ages of rocks not matching up with the dated ages of rocks.
Notice that four of the examples show a radiometric age of less than half a million years with the fifth example showing an age of about 1.5 million years. they take 27 samples from a formation that they know in advance will give them bad dates." we couldn't trust these dating techniques." This would be like taking a bag of marijuana, rubbing some of it on your skin, and being like: "See, dude?
" It sounds like pretty powerful evidence when you first hear about it, but the obvious question that needs to be asked is: How trustworthy is the science behind these findings? One crucial mistake that these creationists made was using the wrong equipment to date their sample. I think I actually have an idea of what went wrong here: these creationists, at the outset of their study, had a very good plan in place for how to conduct rigorous analysis on this question; in the course of their research, however, they ended up dropping this plan , so they just said "Fuck it" and decided to wing it from that point on.
More examples of similar such discrepancies are cited in a lecture given by creationist Andrew Snelling.