Compare and contrast relative age dating with radiometric dating

As discussed before, the assumptions influence the interpretation of the data.There are three main assumptions that must be made to accept radiometric dating methods.I thought it would be useful to present an example where the geology is simple, and unsurprisingly, the method does work well, to show the quality of data that would have to be invalidated before a major revision of the geologic time scale could be accepted by conventional scientists.

compare and contrast relative age dating with radiometric dating-90

A common form of criticism is to cite geologically complicated situations where the application of radiometric dating is very challenging.

These are often characterised as the norm, rather than the exception.

But really, how do scientists figure out how old their dinosaur bones are?

And, what about other findings like fossil fish, plants and insects?

It is these highly consistent and reliable samples, rather than the tricky ones, that have to be falsified for "young Earth" theories to have any scientific plausibility, not to mention the need to falsify huge amounts of evidence from other techniques.

Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming?

It is not about the theory behind radiometric dating methods, it is about their , and it therefore assumes the reader has some familiarity with the technique already (refer to "Other Sources" for more information).

As an example of how they are used, radiometric dates from geologically simple, fossiliferous Cretaceous rocks in western North America are compared to the geological time scale.

We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.

Tags: , ,