Dating uranium 238

We need to explore just how accurate these determinations are, whether there really is consensus on standard values for the half-lives and decay constants, and just how independent and objective the standard values are from one another between the different methods. “Absolute Ages Aren’t Exactly.” Science 282 (5395): 1840–1841.

However, accurate radioisotopic age determinations require that the decay constants of the respective parent radionuclides be accurately known and constant in time. After all, accurate radioisotope age determinations depend on accurate determinations of the decay constants or half-lives of the respective parent radioisotopes. The reliability of the other two assumptions these supposed absolute dating methods rely on, that is, the starting conditions and no contamination of closed systems, are unprovable. Yet much research effort remains to be done to make further inroads into not only uncovering the flaws intrinsic to these long-age dating methods, but towards a thorough understanding of radioisotopes and their decay during the earth’s history within a biblical creationist framework. “The Isotopic Composition of Natural Uranium Samples—Measurements Using the New n(U) Double Spike IRMM-3636.” International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 269 (1–2): 145–148. One crucial area the RATE project did not touch on was the issue of how reliable have been the determinations of the radioisotope decay rates, which are so crucial for calibrating these dating “clocks.” Indeed, before this present series of papers (Snelling 2014a, b; 2015a, b; 2016) there have not been any attempts in the creationist literature to review how the half-lives of the parent radioisotopes used in long-age geological dating have been determined and to collate all the determinations of them reported in the literature to discuss the accuracy of their currently accepted values.

Search for dating uranium 238:

dating uranium 238-54dating uranium 238-80dating uranium 238-31dating uranium 238-77

Thus, all these radioisotope dating methods cannot be used to reject the young-earth creationist timescale, especially as current radioisotope dating methodologies are at best hypotheses based on extrapolating current measurements and observations back into an assumed deep time history for the cosmos.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “dating uranium 238”