Carbon dating proving evolution

07-Feb-2017 17:21 by 5 Comments

Carbon dating proving evolution

[2] Variances were seen regardless of location: The expectation is that rocks located at the same site would date to the same age regardless of the method used.

He stated: So here’s another evolutionist who refused to accept the results given from radiometric dating.They know that radiometric dating is not, and in fact cannot be the precise science they want you to believe it is.Consider: In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (Potassium-Argon) age it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.If that is the case, it is indicative of a serious problem with the techniques you are using to get the weight.Yet this is precisely the situation we have with radiometric dating.Radioactive decay occurs (usually) at a regular rate, so scientists attempt to use that property as a clock to mark time. The mass is comprised of the protons and Neutrons (electrons are so light they are can typically be ignored.) This means it has 6 protons and 6 neutrons.

Here’s how the method is supposed to work: Looking at carbon in the periodic table we see this: “6” is the atomic number and means it has 6 protons. A carbon “isotope” is formed when the number of neutrons vary from what is expected from the atomic weight.Why is there so little confidence in the outcome of radiometric dating that scientist admit that they regularly reject data provided by that means?All you need to do is compare the methodology of radiometric dating with that of predicting aircraft performance and the answer becomes perfectly obvious.Radiometric dating regularly gives different ages for the same object based on the method used.For example check the variance in ages from samples tested by two different methods.Accurate: Performance predictions consistently fall within a narrow range of expected values and don’t vary greatly.