How Does Radiometric Dating Work? | Ars Technica

[@uyenst]

I love that daughters hold a phone. Hits a lil too close to home

[@jaycheek254]

Has anyone ever accurately dated the age of a rock with a known age? Does temperature, pressure, photons, and exposure increase or decrease decay of elements?

[@DantzikZodarro]

Yes they have, scientists are aware of all these variables and account for them by testing many-many times.

[@benjieduke3693]

@@DantzikZodarro I would like to ask you some questions about radio metric dating. If you think god exists, never mind. If not please reply to me at [e-mail]. or here.

[@DantzikZodarro]

To be perfectly honest, no I don’t know for a fact that they have tested it on rocks with known ages, but refusing to go through the appropriate testing procedures would fly in the face of the scientific method. If you have reason to believe that the work of these scientists is being published without following the proper procedures then let the world know

[@DantzikZodarro]

Benjie Duke: I’m a Deist, I do believe in some form of god-like being

[@noobsaibot5285]

No. The half life of the reference elements are too long. The only rocks that can actually be dated are igneous or metamorphosed igneous rocks. The known ages of rock formations have never been experimentally verified to my knowledge. It would make for good science to do this though, before concluding that it works.

[@AtypicalPaul]

How do we know that the half of a radioactive isotope Is billions of years? We obviously cannot observe it decaying if it's that long. How was this originally discovered?

[@_catulus]

wienerdogman paul Also, the whole “consistent rate of decay” is a complete assumption; we have no way of knowing exactly how drastically or how frequently the rate of decay might have increased or decreased in all the years of a rock’s existence.

[@ohyeahyeah4312]

Catulus radioactive decay is always consistent

[@_catulus]

AK Hobbies As far as we’ve observed. The assumption lies in the idea that it has been exactly the way we have observed it for the entire span of its existence.

[@ohyeahyeah4312]

Catulus can you show that it can be altered?

[@_catulus]

AK Hobbies Like I said in my original comment, we have no way of knowing whether or not it has changed.

[@ericberger984]

How could one know that the entire sample “trapped” in the rock started out as completely uranium isotope, rather than some uranium and some lead?

[@charleslyell3748]

Not sure but I can guess. Igneous rocks are formed by a process of magma (melted rock) cristalization, very high temperature. Under these temperature lead evaporates so It's unlikely to find lead in this environment. Besides that, you do many measurements so that you treat the problema statisticaly.

[@tyranids4ever]

The crystal structure of zircons do not allow for lead to be introduced, but does allow Uranium. This allows us to assume that lead found in zircon crystals is radiogenic in nature.

[@theeraphatsunthornwit6266]

@@tyranids4ever wow this answer the question i was searching for.

[@ericberger984]

@@tyranids4ever Do you have a reference or a resource explaining why the crystal structure of zircons doesn’t allow for lead to be introduced?

[@ericberger984]

@@charleslyell3748 Would it be possible that due to the immense pressure exerted on magma trapped under the surface (which would be required for the formation of zircon and the diamonds they were found in) of the earth that the vaporization temperature of lead might be affected?

[@MrJasonBibeau]

Can you explain the part about the rock trapped in the ice in more detail please? How can they both be dated to be the same age?

[@chumplafayette9561]

When the zircon formed, it trapped isotopes inside it. There are two kinds of isotopes in it: U235 and U238. Scientists already know the half-life of these isotopes, and half-lifes reveal the rate of decay for each specific isotope. They analyze the isotopes found in the zircon, see how much the isotopes have decayed, and do the math which is represented by the stop watches in the video. Since U235 has a shorter half-life than U238, it will have decayed further inside the zircon. The math is basically cross referencing the stage of decay in each isotope to determine a range that would likely be the age of the zircon itself.

[@seanLee-sk2mi]

Daughter? why Daughter? any feminist out there answer me.

[@friedrichwaterson3185]

Thank you for this video. I still have a question though, are we really finding the date of formation of the rock ? Is it not possible that at start there was already daughter isotopes. How can we know how what the ratio was at that moment ? And where do these isotopes come from ? Shouldn't that source produce both the parent isotope and the daughter isotope ? I feel there is a problem with the initial condition, what is said is that, at formation, there was only radioactive isotopes and based on that we can get the time it took for them to reach the measured ratio. What am I missing ?

[@WhyPhi]

If I’m not mistaken the conditions at formation are such that the decay product is not expected to be present. For example the decay product of uranium is lead, and under the conditions of formation of these rocks, lead will evaporate. So it is assumed that any lead found is the result of radioactive decay of uranium. Furthermore as they mentioned, the crystal structure of the sample rock does not allow for lead to enter the “capsule”. Hope this helps, I am not an expert but I have education in chemistry; still double check what I say here as I have not read into this for some time.

[@friedrichwaterson3185]

@@WhyPhi Thank you very much, what you are saying makes sense

[@rocketsurgeon1746]

They assume the parent was pure at the time of the big bang because the formation of the earth couldn't create uranium.

[@fellower]

@@rocketsurgeon1746 we aren't dating rocks from the big bang.

[@rocketsurgeon1746]

@@fellower when was the uranium and other metals we date formed? :)

[@photoelectron]

Nice explanation !

[@kobedierckx2918]

Nice and short video, exactly what i needed!

[@voiceofREASONS]

I am having a difficult time learning how scientists determine a half life of 4 billion years. Seems like a shot from such a limited time perspective

[@jimsagubigula7337]

If you measure the state of the nucleus in two different times, even if they are just a second apart, because radioactive decay follows a strict mathematical formula, we van calculate the half life.

[@seanLee-sk2mi]

how can we assume the parent is 100% and child is 0% at the beginning? what is the beginning?

[@tru7hs]

​@@seanLee-sk2mi We know because we can recreate the formation of specific rocks/minerals. I.e., we know that certain rocks/minerals are not naturally made of both Uranium and Lead. We know it's a matter of having just the Uranium when the rock was first formed.

[@ravenvalentine4919]

You sound like a creationist asking a canned question without paying attention to the video or even bothering to look to practical applications for this method in every day life and industry

[@Emper0rH0rde]

I *almost* understood this.

[@MossyMozart]

@Emper0rH0rde - YES!

[@sciencenerd7639]

this is a really great video

[@jaeminahn6300]

thanks for the video it really helped

[@jonathanpenduka7420]

I'm just interested in knowing what the control is for this method

[@michaelblankenau6598]

The control ? It’s the knowledge of radioactive decay rates .

[@noobsaibot5285]

Can you validate the methodology by dating igneous rocks of known ages?

[@drphil4ril161]

And did the ice age have an effect on radiation?

[@MichaelDesign04]

This was addressed in the video using the tree ring and summer/winter cycle snow ice. We know that each layer/ring represents one year, so by counting the number of layers/rings we then have an extremely reliable and precise measurement to which we can compare the results of the radiometric dating.

[@noobsaibot5285]

@@MichaelDesign04 @Michael van Zyl Are you serious? Sorry I have to pull you up there. Ice layers do not represent winter cycles. Numerous layers can form within a day. Ww2 planes have been found buried in ice sheets beneath thousands of layers of compressed ice. You have been sold a lemon.

[@MossyMozart]

@@drphil4ril161 - Erika at the "Gutsick Gibbon" channel explained that researchers have subjected rock with all kinds of insults - pressure, cold, heat - and the only effect they could achieve was when they subjected rock to extremely high heats, far hotter than they ever face. They were able to slow decay by only 1%, a very minor amount. ------- (Example : 1,000,000 years x 1% = 10,000 years.)

[@JesusTookMyPunishment]

Check mt St Helens radiometric dating on answersingenesis

[@rocketsurgeon1746]

How does the laying down of sedimentary layers(water), reset the radioactive clock of uranium?

[@Nickle314]

Doesn't cover how you know the rock when it formed had no daughter elements in it, or how you make an adjustment for that.

[@Nickle314]

Found it. Search for the "The Isochron Method"

[@MossyMozart]

@Nickle314 - Re-watch the video.

[@savagewon4471]

How do you know what the original age of an isotope is? If no one was around to measure it when it began? Is it just a guess?

[@deleteyourelbows4235]

Thank you

[@shubhamrai5656]

very well explane

[@almakiahajra5011]

Excellent👍👍👍👍

[@edga69]

How do you know the initial proportion of isotopes trapped inside? Edit: You briefly mentioned, as do other sources, that the natural abundance of isotopes is understood fairly precisely based on the formation of the solar system. Though another source says that humans enriching radioactive materials has affected this proportion. Couldn't there have been random cosmic events (or anything else) that would introduce a systematic error into the models which calculate natural abundance? If so, wouldn't the dates from radiometric dating be incorrect?

[@Nephusim]

I found this helpful kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4TEpmd-ibOdoac

[@fellower]

It wouldn't matter how much we started with when often this radiometric dating is measuring element's that have decayed into entirely different elements within crystal formations.

[@MossyMozart]

@edga69 - No. That's why radiometric isotope dating works so well - it is very reliable and works at a steady rate. The radiometric clock starts ticking when the rock is formed. Once enough time has passed for daughter isotopes to accumulate, then the rock can be dated.

[@benevolent6705]

How do you know how much Carbon 14 was in the rock that is being dated, in the beginning? Isn't that essential for knowing how old the rock is?

[@richardblazer8070]

Carbon 14 dating and radiometric dating are two different things. This video is about radiometric dating, not carbon dating. Carbon 14 dating is used on organic material. All organisms have carbon in their body and it starts to decrease as soon as they die as they are no longer taking carbon 14 into the body. Learn how the process works before making a fool of yourself.

[@benevolent6705]

@@richardblazer8070 Carbon 14 dating is a form of radiometric dating.

[@benevolent6705]

@@richardblazer8070 Most isotopes found on Earth are generally stable and do not change. However some isotopes, like 14C, have an unstable nucleus and are radioactive. This means that occasionally the unstable isotope will change its number of protons, neutrons, or both. This change is called radioactive decay. For example, unstable 14C transforms to stable nitrogen (14N). The atomic nucleus that decays is called the parent isotope. The product of the decay is called the daughter isotope. In the example, 14C is the parent and 14N is the daughter. Some minerals in rocks and organic matter (e.g., wood, bones, and shells) can contain radioactive isotopes. The abundances of parent and daughter isotopes in a sample can be measured and used to determine their age. This method is known as RADIOMETRIC DATING.

[@MossyMozart]

@benevolent6705 - Go to 1:02.

[@iskabin]

But how can we know that at the moment of formation the thing had 100% of the isotope we are using to date it?

[@rocketsurgeon1746]

3:00, how did the u238 form on earth? Has the theory changed from being formed in a supernova?

[@Reebokanonymous]

"Take this tiny zircon" Sure, it's small, but it's free

[@antonteodor6305]

Thank you so much fór explaining the part with fixation of isotopes - the way we can be sure that the modern decay byproduct isotopes are indeed decay byproducts and not coming from other sources

[@briannauquillas]

Can someone explain this to me. It makes no sense to me. How do they know what the half -life is equal to and how do they place it in the rock, and once placed in the rock what happens to these isotopes that you are able to determine how many half lives have passed??????

[@andrea5155]

I can't explain it accurately but I've read it somewhere. To determine half-life, you examine the activity of that particular radioactive isotope. So you basically observe how many grams(?) of that isotope is decaying per second or minute and you'll be able to get the decay constant and the rest is using mathematics and equations (law of radioactive decay). We'll be able to determine the half-life. Inside a rock, they keep decaying and we can calculate how many half-lives have passed again using math. I hope I answered most if not all of your questions.

[@mikestarkly9226]

Any form of dating is an estimate. Though one of the wisest things ever said to me by a scientist was that statistically (and just logically) speaking science has not and cannot prove anything 100% since it's theoretically impossible to check every scenario possible. This is also a part of the reason why they have to explain this method does not work for certain types of minerals. It's only been "proven" (in most testing/within a reasonable doubt...) with certain minerals and certain scenarios. There are almost always outliers in the data that people can't explain and probably never will be able to so they are discounted so that we can try to cement an idea/hypothesis.

[@coolstoolgames8374]

watch out boys thanos gonna come for the Hadean zircon

[@i_would_but_i_wont]

I don't understand how this competes with Tinder?

[@chrisyu1024]

Isn't all of the other stone 4.5byo?

[@spatrk6634]

surface strata is lot younger than deeper strata

[@williamchamberlain2263]

No; most of the old stuff has been eroded away, then the fragments subducted and recycled.

[@MossyMozart]

@chrisyu1024 - Unfortunately, no. In the 1st Epoch of existence, the Hadean (named for Hades), the Earth was bombarded by waves upon waves of crashing meteors, millions of volcanic eruptions, and when plate tectonics started, the crust was ground under other plates. This titanic Epoch resulted in rocks being churned into molten liquid and re-used again and again. Very little of the crust survived all that trauma.

[@shrekinsurens3094]

yea

[@koryzap7339]

I've heard from people that study nature that some trees don't grow just 1 ring a year, some grow 2, also some trees can't grow a ring in 1 year. How can the people conclusively determine that each year (for thousands of years) 1 layer of ice accumulates? That seems like some sketchy inference to me

[@RockinLoud360]

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it not true.

[@Pyr0Ben]

Both dendochronology and ice core rings being a uniformitarian 1 ring a year have been debunked several times. They don't prove the age of anything

[@maureenkelly7771]

So rocks are isotope orphanage

[@richardwise7813]

Why would the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes tell us the rate?

[@garywalker447]

No the rate is fixed, the ratio of the parent elements to the daughter isotopes tells us the age.

[@NephilimFree]

Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating: 1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. 2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. 3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed. There are three possible explanations for discordant isotope dates. 1. There may be a mixing of isotopes between the volcanic flow and the rock body into which the lava intrudes. There are ways to determine if this has occurred and can be eliminated as a possible explanation. 2. Some of the minerals may have solidified at different times. However, there is no evidence that lava cools and solidifies in the same place at such an incredibly slow pace. Therefore this explanation can be eliminated. 3. The decay rates have been different in the past than they are today. The following section will show that this provides the best explanation for the discordant ages. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years. L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Missouri, 2000. D. DeYoung, Thousands … Not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005. A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years. SOURCE: S.A. Austin, Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(3): 335-343, 1996. In one specific case, samples were taken from the Cardenas Basalt, which is among the oldest strata in the eastern Grand Canyon. Next, samples from the western Canyon basalt lava flows, which are among the youngest formations in the canyon, were analyzed. Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1.11 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.14 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave a billion year age the same as the oldest rocks! Lead Isotope Paradox - well-known problem of volcanic material from eruptions known to have occured in history which give long ages "In our three article series on radiometric dating, we discuss in depth the assumptions that scientists must make. For example, it has to be assumed that all the daughter isotopes found in rocks today have been derived by radioactive decay of the parent isotopes. It also has to be assumed that the rate of decay of the parent isotopes in the past has occurred constantly at the same rates measured today. There is absolutely no way any scientist can know whether these two assumptions are correct, because the evidence only exists today in the present, and we can’t go back to test the past millions of years and check that the rates of radioactive decay were the same then as they are now." - Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, geologist, on December 30, 2011 answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-and-proof/ According to Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling, the Cardenas Basalt Lavas have been dated with different methods and vastly different ages were produced: Potassium-Argon: 516 MY, Rubidium-Strontium: 1,111 MY, Samarium-Neodynium: 1,588 MY The 1986 dacite flow on Mount St Helens been Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dated as 350K YA. Mt Ngauruhoe has erupted several times in the past 50 years. Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old, which is a 1,000,000% error. The Unikaret lava flows at the bottom of the Grand Canyon has been radiometrically dated as 10,000 YA, 117 MYA, 715 MYA, 853 MYA, 1.1 BYA, 1.39 BYA, 2.6 BYA. "Although some scientists using carbon-14 will propose dates extending back 50,000 years, Dr George Howe acknowledges that "the men who know the limits of the method, the men who run the tests, would report that they cannot date with accuracy beyond 3,000 years." - George Howe, Carbon 14 and Other Radio-Active Dating Methods, p.11 the Cardenas Basalt under the Grand Canoyon gives similar dates as the Unikaret Lava Flow which flowed from above the canyon to it's bottom and once blocked the flow of the Colorado River in the canyon. Australia’s “Burning Mountain” speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system. According to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible. "Whatever the figures arrived at by the dating tests, they are weeded out before publication in scientific journals, if they do not accord with the preconceived dates assigned to the evolutionary geological column." - E.H. Andrews, Professor of Materials, University of London, and Head of the Department of Materials at Queen Mary College, in book, God, Science and Evolution “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks.” - J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science, 1976, 276:51. "In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." - Richard L. Mauger, Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, K-Ar Ages of Biotites From Tuffs in Eocene Rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol.15-1, 1977, p.37 "Geochron Laboratories will return samples to clients if they give a date above 3,000 years, with comments that they are above the age that can be accurately dated." - George Howe, University of California Santa Barbara, Carbon 14 and Other Radio-Active Dating Methods, p.11 The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 848 pp., 2005 Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296-298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296). Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time and a vast age of the earth. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes, Creation28(2):46-50, 2006. Squashed pleochroic halos (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical “young” earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events.

[@noxhedge401]

No ones going to read that but im sure you know

[@giffmimi]

Actually, I just did.

[@mikestarkly9226]

Any form of dating is an estimate. Though one of the wisest things ever said to me by a scientist was that statistically (and just logically) speaking science has not and cannot prove anything 100% since it's theoretically impossible to check every scenario possible. This is also a part of the reason why they have to explain this method does not work for certain types of minerals. It's only been "proven" (in most testing/within a reasonable doubt...) with certain minerals and certain scenarios. There are almost always outliers in the data that people can't explain and probably never will be able to so they are discounted so that we can try to cement an idea/hypothesis.

[@NephilimFree]

@@mikestarkly9226 Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating: 1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. 2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. 3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed. There are three possible explanations for discordant isotope dates. 1. There may be a mixing of isotopes between the volcanic flow and the rock body into which the lava intrudes. There are ways to determine if this has occurred and can be eliminated as a possible explanation. 2. Some of the minerals may have solidified at different times. However, there is no evidence that lava cools and solidifies in the same place at such an incredibly slow pace. Therefore this explanation can be eliminated. 3. The decay rates have been different in the past than they are today. The following section will show that this provides the best explanation for the discordant ages. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years. L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Missouri, 2000. D. DeYoung, Thousands … Not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005. A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years. SOURCE: S.A. Austin, Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(3): 335-343, 1996. In one specific case, samples were taken from the Cardenas Basalt, which is among the oldest strata in the eastern Grand Canyon. Next, samples from the western Canyon basalt lava flows, which are among the youngest formations in the canyon, were analyzed. Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1.11 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.14 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave a billion year age the same as the oldest rocks! Lead Isotope Paradox - well-known problem of volcanic material from eruptions known to have occured in history which give long ages "In our three article series on radiometric dating, we discuss in depth the assumptions that scientists must make. For example, it has to be assumed that all the daughter isotopes found in rocks today have been derived by radioactive decay of the parent isotopes. It also has to be assumed that the rate of decay of the parent isotopes in the past has occurred constantly at the same rates measured today. There is absolutely no way any scientist can know whether these two assumptions are correct, because the evidence only exists today in the present, and we can’t go back to test the past millions of years and check that the rates of radioactive decay were the same then as they are now." - Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, geologist, on December 30, 2011 answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-and-proof/ According to Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling, the Cardenas Basalt Lavas have been dated with different methods and vastly different ages were produced: Potassium-Argon: 516 MY, Rubidium-Strontium: 1,111 MY, Samarium-Neodynium: 1,588 MY The 1986 dacite flow on Mount St Helens been Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dated as 350K YA. Mt Ngauruhoe has erupted several times in the past 50 years. Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old, which is a 1,000,000% error. The Unikaret lava flows at the bottom of the Grand Canyon has been radiometrically dated as 10,000 YA, 117 MYA, 715 MYA, 853 MYA, 1.1 BYA, 1.39 BYA, 2.6 BYA. "Although some scientists using carbon-14 will propose dates extending back 50,000 years, Dr George Howe acknowledges that "the men who know the limits of the method, the men who run the tests, would report that they cannot date with accuracy beyond 3,000 years." - George Howe, Carbon 14 and Other Radio-Active Dating Methods, p.11 the Cardenas Basalt under the Grand Canoyon gives similar dates as the Unikaret Lava Flow which flowed from above the canyon to it's bottom and once blocked the flow of the Colorado River in the canyon. Australia’s “Burning Mountain” speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system. According to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible. "Whatever the figures arrived at by the dating tests, they are weeded out before publication in scientific journals, if they do not accord with the preconceived dates assigned to the evolutionary geological column." - E.H. Andrews, Professor of Materials, University of London, and Head of the Department of Materials at Queen Mary College, in book, God, Science and Evolution “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks.” - J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science, 1976, 276:51. "In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." - Richard L. Mauger, Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, K-Ar Ages of Biotites From Tuffs in Eocene Rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol.15-1, 1977, p.37 "Geochron Laboratories will return samples to clients if they give a date above 3,000 years, with comments that they are above the age that can be accurately dated." - George Howe, University of California Santa Barbara, Carbon 14 and Other Radio-Active Dating Methods, p.11 The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 848 pp., 2005 Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296-298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296). Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time and a vast age of the earth. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes, Creation28(2):46-50, 2006. Squashed pleochroic halos (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical “young” earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events.

[@fellower]

Considering it was creationists doing the dating I highly doubt they performed the experiments accuratly or in good faith

[@AtmoStk]

I'm observing a lot of idiots in the comments parroting the same lines -> 50,000 years, how do you know the initial amount, etc. etc. It is clear that these people are not truly curious, but are simply trying to get a one-up or a "gotcha!" with their primitive understanding - probably creationists.

[@LexiWeinbaum]

Im not a creationist, nor a YEC, but how do we know the half lives are 4 billion years??

[@iacovcoc4031]

Thk

[@marilorbastille2821]

from FAST instrument

[@thegreatbear7489]

If that zircon crystal is the oldest kniw rock then how do you know that the Earth was around for 150 million years before that

[@zgunderson90]

Are you saying all of these rocks have uranium in them? I thought uranium was not naturally occurring

[@blackhawk7r221]

Not all rocks contain Uranium.

[@peterstoric6560]

Actually it’s more common than silver, you are most likely thinking of Uranium-235 with is a specific isotope used in creating the atomic bombs

[@randomguyodst46]

Cool theories.

[@preservativetalkradio]

You can only get the theoretical maximum of a rock. You have to be sure there was no lead in the specimen prior to the uranium:lead comparison. You also have to use other element comparisons in the rock that might show a shorter 'theoretical maximum'. Either the rocks are that old, or the ratios of elements in those rocks tend to have a certain amount of uranium:lead or rubidium:strontium, etc. and it is essentially meaningless except to determine an absolute theoretical maximum of when the rock was formed. Different types of specimens in the different parts of the rocks showing differing dates are evidence that the specimen tested is not merely a parent:daughter ratio but is actually a ratio of uranium:lead original content.

[@preethins2973]

Lead can't get into the crystal lattice of zircon. But uranium can. So we can be sure there was no lead at the starting . Scientist always thinking carefully before doing any experiment

[@preservativetalkradio]

@@preethins2973 That is a presumption that the uranium got into the zircon rather than was created in it.

[@preethins2973]

@@preservativetalkradio how can uranium be created inside it?

[@mikestarkly9226]

Indeed. Any form of dating is an estimate. Though one of the wisest things ever said to me by a scientist was that statistically (and just logically) speaking science has not and cannot prove anything 100% since it's theoretically impossible to check every scenario possible. This is also a part of the reason why they have to explain this method does not work for certain types of minerals. It's only been "proven" (in most testing/within a reasonable doubt...) with certain minerals and certain scenarios. There are almost always outliers in the data that people can't explain and probably never will be able to so they are discounted so that we can try to cement an idea/hypothesis.

[@BrockJamesStory]

The answer is they don’t know

[@GrayC_2478]

Thanks, I finally understand how carbon dating works.

[@Philitron128]

This isn't carbon dating, but it is related. This is general radiometric dating.

[@GrayC_2478]

@@Philitron128 Ok thanks

[@GrayC_2478]

@@Philitron128 I guess the video didn't explain it that well lol😅

[@MossyMozart]

@@GrayC_2478 - The video never mentioned carbon!

[@GrayC_2478]

@@MossyMozart yes Phil already said that

[@shrekinsurens3094]

SCIENCEE

[@russianbot8423]

radioactive isotopes do not decay at a consistent rate. It is completely random.

[@WokeandProud]

Ya no.

[@MossyMozart]

@russianbot8423 - You are mistaken. Decay is consistent and constant. That's why it's so valuable and completely cool.

[@johnfinch4585]

This only works up to fifty thousand years.

[@MsLaBajo]

Huh? I understood "half-life". That's it. Lol!

[@xpicklex155]

So who ealse is here because of a school test

[@rcopern1807]

I wish I was smart

[@Colin-jd8jq]

It doesn’t

[@paulgarrett4474]

Yes it does, you just don't like it.

[@Colin-jd8jq]

@ instead of spewing your blatant ignorance, go educate yourself. Been proven over and over and over again it is extremely unreliable, very inconsistent and therefore false. You can start with Mount St.Helen. You’re welcome!

[@TheMetalBison]

He’s wrong about the tree rings. Many rings can form in one year. So what else in this video is wrong?

[@mikestarkly9226]

Hehe Yes there's a lot in this video that's stated as pure fact with no possible error when that's just not how it works. Any form of dating is an estimate. Though one of the wisest things ever said to me by a scientist was that statistically (and just logically) speaking science has not and cannot prove anything 100% since it's theoretically impossible to check every scenario possible. This is also a part of the reason why they have to explain this method does not work for certain types of minerals. It's only been "proven" (in most testing/within a reasonable doubt...) with certain minerals and certain scenarios. There are almost always outliers in the data that people can't explain and probably never will be able to so they are discounted so that we can try to cement an idea/hypothesis.

[@paddyodriscoll8648]

Ok, religious people? Get a freaking education.

[@justindarnellfpv]

1:50 and we find the loophole that makes the dating impossible to actually know… 🤯 trees have been observed in modern day to grow more than one ring a year and sometimes to not grow any rings. Ice is unreliable because it can snow many times in a year or not at all. Every dating method mentioned has huge flaws and are based on big assumptions

[@Nightmare-bo7xi]

why does he barely move his mouth

[@rickknight5872]

Uniformitarianism versus catastrophism That is the question Way too many anomalies not explained by present day processes. Catastrophism explains most anomalies

[@MossyMozart]

Then they ARE explained??

[@Felix-sb5wp]

helllloooo

[@shrekinsurens3094]

i dont understand this bc this makes no sense bc science makes no sense and

[@evansims2816]

therefore zeus exists

[@mikestarkly9226]

Any form of dating is an estimate. Though one of the wisest things ever said to me by a scientist was that statistically (and just logically) speaking science has not and cannot prove anything 100% since it's theoretically impossible to check every scenario possible. This is also a part of the reason why they have to explain this method does not work for certain types of minerals. It's only been "proven" (in most testing/within a reasonable doubt...) with certain minerals and certain scenarios. There are almost always outliers in the data that people can't explain and probably never will be able to so they are discounted so that we can try to cement an idea/hypothesis.

[@haruruben]

The world is 6000 years old and flat,don’t you know anything?😋

[@koryzap7339]

I believe in God and the 6-7000 yr old Earth theory is just misinterpreted info from an ancient book. Making fun of those who believe is similar to the intelligence of those who believe it. Mockery. 😛

[@koryzap7339]

@E D ok.

[@JeshuSavesEndTimeMinistry21C]

The flood account is verifiable and according to natural law fossilization must occur rapidly in order for the preservation of organisms to occur

[@WokeandProud]

No.

[@MossyMozart]

@Jeshua1737 - You confuse religion with science. They are 2 completely different realms.

[@ConservativeAnthem]

This guy has a strange small stutter.

[@APracticingGamer]

Not buyin it.

[@jesussuperlightchris5797]

Unfortunately nobody go go back to when the rocks were formed to see what the isotopes were doing so it's just guesswork, if you make up the figures yourself to begin with then any decay is irrelevant. All coal would have to be 50000 years old or less if I was to believe what this video said, when you see a hammer handle turning into coal then it obviously happens quite quick.

[@MossyMozart]

@jesussuperlightchris5797 - Why are you talking about coal? Coal formed waaaaaaaaaaaaay longer ago than a mere 50,000 years. Try about 300 million years during the Carboniferous period.

[@stimulantbeats7607]

ANY IIT JEE ASPIRANTS

[@endings2838]

Too hard to me

[@lucafensham103]

Same

[@rocketsurgeon1746]

Half life is defined as the chance of, not a set amount. Good luck fact checking u238s half-life . Asking how they actually came up with those values in the billions of years is interesting since they cannot be verified or observed form accuracy

[@hozn]

If you believe what he’s saying and make the same assumptions. Then also believe you’re related to a banana 🍌

[@curiousHell1775]

If you believe some magical man in sky you are more delusional than anybody else

[@MossyMozart]

@hozn - 1.) All life on Earth IS related, though sometimes many times removed, like your banana. 2.) It sounds like you are putting your faith in science into the hands of non-scientists.

[@c.t.6314]

You don’t know that it decays consistently! That’s an assumption!

[@gra6282]

you are obviously not educated in the subject

[@mikestarkly9226]

Any form of dating is an estimate. MOst if not all of science is based on assumptions. Humans are not infallible and therefore neither are our scientific findings. You can't argue computers are either since they are created by us.Though one of the wisest things ever said to me by a scientist was that statistically (and just logically) speaking science has not and cannot prove anything 100% since it's theoretically impossible to check every scenario possible. This is also a part of the reason why they have to explain this method does not work for certain types of minerals. It's only been "proven" (in most testing/within a reasonable doubt...) with certain minerals and certain scenarios. There are almost always outliers in the data that people can't explain and probably never will be able to so they are discounted so that we can try to cement an idea/hypothesis.

[@shrekinsurens3094]

i think science is not worth learningggggg

[@richardblazer8070]

While you use an electronic device to type that comment.

[@BlindGuy-vs5rc]

Here’s the big problem with radiometric dating. They took the newly formed rocks after the mount Saint Helens eruption in 1980s. It has came up with dates varying from 500,000 years ago to two .1 billion years ago. Not one time when we know the exact age of newly formed rocks from volcanic activity.Has a radiometric dating even came close in the age of the rocks. Furthermore, that they perform multiple radiometric dating tests. That show different results on a very very vast scale. It is worth noting that when they used radiocarbon dating on Mount St. Helens.The dates are there testing came up with. We’re completely in accurate. So it makes you wonder why they still use these methods as proof at the age of the world. It is because it takes a lie to support ally. That is if this lie is exposed then the theory of evolution falls completely apart. The two major things that evolution and creation is him has in common is. They both take faith to believe in them.

[@WokeandProud]

That was debunked and based on a snobby study with no proper controls out in place dismissed. And no evolution doesn't take faith to believe it its hased on empirical evidence like all science is.

[@ryanlengacher]

BS !!

[@WokeandProud]

It's not cope.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion _ryan?_

[@nibiruresearch]

Geologists only think and talk about periods of millions of years. They have different methods for determining the age of rock layers. However, there is one small problem. Ancient books tell us that a cycle of natural disasters threatens the earth and all living things. The cause of this cycle of disasters is a ninth planet in our solar system orbiting the sun in an eccentric orbit. Features of the natural disaster include a massive tidal wave, higher than the highest mountain, flooding, storms, rain, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and a fiery asteroid bombardment. That planet is surrounded by a gigantic twisting cloud of dust and meteorites. That cloud obscures the atmosphere, pollutes the water and covers the whole planet Earth with that dust. At the end of the crossing of this planet 9, the earth is covered with a horizontal layer of wet mud, a mixture of sand, clay, lime, fossils of sea and land animals, shells and the deposit of that dust cloud and asteroids. So in every layer on our planet we will find material of the same antiquity, perhaps many millions of years old: the deposit of extraterrestrial clay and meteorites. Even the youngest, topmost earth layer, which is less than 6,000 years old, also includes the same very old deposit. If you don't know about this cycle, you have no idea how our history has evolved. To learn much more about planet 9, the recurring flood cycle and its timeline, the re-creation of civilizations and ancient high technology, read the e-book: "Planet 9 = Nibiru". It can be read on any computer, tablet or smartphone. Search: invisible nibiru 9

[@spacechip3386]

radiometric dating doesn't seem accurate to me, there's so much that doesn't add up you just don't put those things in the video, plus the bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old.

[@curiousHell1775]

If you see things from a biblical perspective you will be always wrong.

[@Aurora666_yt]

Where in the bible does it say, "the earth is only 6,000" years old"? Give me the exact book, chapter, and verse! In such a young earth: no tall mountain ranges, no Himalayas, no Mariana Trench, and no atmosphere as we know it. (Also in a young earth: no coal, oil, natural gas, or any other Fossil fuels. Those take millions of years to form).

[@spacechip3386]

@@Aurora666_yt I did some deep searching and no there is no verse that says the earth is 6,000 years old but does it really make sense that the earth is hundreds of billions of years old? I mean I was wrong but you probably are too. There is no official proof of how old the earth is, and radiometric dating has been wrong before with those volcanic rocks that were dated as thousands of years old but we know that the volcano made those rocks around the 1950s, And I can't even remember which volcano it was I learned about it in school a couple years ago so sue me if I'm wrong. Even if the earth is billions or thousands of years old there's no point in fighting about it. I really don't care that much because knowing how old the earth is doesn't improve my life at all.

[@niie1091]

Did you even watch the video

[@MossyMozart]

@spacechip3386 - NO PLACE in the "Bible" does it claim when the Earth was formed. That 6,000 year thing is what somebody thought up one day. Young Earth Creationists are a very small sect. The big majority of Christians know that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years +/-150,000,000 million years.

[@CelestialxPanda]

No it's not reliable. A freshly dead seal dated 1000's of years old. 🤡🤣🤣🤣

[@MossyMozart]

@CelestialxPanda - Re-watch the video. In order to get measurable isotopes, enough time has to pass for daughter isotopes to form. Using Carbon-14 decay into Nitrogen-14, the dead organic matter has to fall within the 100 to 50,000 (maybe 60,00 at the most) year window. If you had a freshly dead seal radiocarbon dated, you wasted your money, everybody's time, and disrespected the seal.