Radiometric dating percent error
"How can creationists expect people to accept a young earth when science has proved through radiometric dating that the earth is billions of years old?
" This article addresses that question, which represents the thinking of a large number of people today.
It furnishes some good evidences that creationists often use.
All the samples show loss of lead isotopes, but the intercept of the errorchron (straight line through the sample points) and the concordia (curve) shows the correct age of the rock.In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques.One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost.ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all.Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well.