Potassium argon method radiometric dating Sexchat without registry
This is a tall order and the creationists have made no progress so far.
It is rare for a study involving radiometric dating to contain a single determination of age.
These melted crystals, and therefore the impact, have been dated by the 40Ar/39Ar method at 74.1 Ma (million years; Izett and others 1998), but that is not the whole story by a long shot.
The impact also created shocked quartz crystals that were blasted into the air and subsequently fell to the west into the inland sea that occupied much of central North America at that time.
I have selected four examples from recent literature, mostly studies involving my work and that of a few close colleagues because it was easy to do so.
Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 000 years? Second, it is an approach doomed to failure at the outset.The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons.First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young.These methods provide valuable and valid age data in most instances, although there is a small percentage of cases in which even these generally reliable methods yield incorrect results.Such failures may be due to laboratory errors (mistakes happen), unrecognized geologic factors (nature sometimes fools us), or misapplication of the techniques (no one is perfect).
Creationists seem to think that a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, but such a conclusion is illogical.