Dating is a science too
..geologist has more faith in the fossil evidence than in a machine date, and this reflects some of the uncertainties of radiometric determinations and the interpretation of results." CASCADIA, The Geological Evolution Of The Pacific Northwest, p.25, 27 NOT CONCORDANT, Joan C. The samples, in fact, may be very recent...", Science, Vol.162, p.265 PRECISION DATING? Research News, Science, "The calculated age was quickly refined to be 2.61 0.26 million years, which, to anthropologist unfamiliar with the procedures of radiometric dating, has a ring of comforting precision about it. which varied between 223 million and 0.91 million years ...after the first determination they never again obtained 2.61 from their experiments." Bones Of Contention, p.194 AGES IN ERROR", Robert E. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'".
If you feel that any of the quotes are used in a "deceptive and misleading" way, please contact the webmaster a formal inquiry will be made of your concerns. Significance Of Issue, Earnst Mayr, Harvard, "The revolution began when it became obvious that the earth was very ancient rather than having been created only 6,000 years ago. of CA, Santa Barbara, "As the sun's first ray's of thermonuclear light blazed across the galaxy 4.5 billion years ago, the primal earth emerged from a spinning, turbulent cloud of gas, dust and planetoids that surrounded the new star. On these figures for the age of the earth rest all of geology and evolution." Scientific American, 8/1989, p.90. Given so much time, the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. And second, that no atoms of the daughter were present in the system when it formed. of Western Ont., "In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, 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. Macdougall, "The fourth assumption presupposes that the concentration of uranium in any specimen has remained constant over the specimen's life.
This finding was the snowball that started the whole avalanche.", Nature Of The Darwinian Revolution, p.3. George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard, "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles," The Physics And Chemistry Of Life, p.12. These assumptions furnish the most serious limitations on the accumulation clock. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon." Canadian Journal Of Earth Science, 4. ...ground-water percolation can leach away a proportion of the uranium present in the rock crystals.
Yet, here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, Vol. 2, p.46 "However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. Rigorously closed systems probably do not exist in nature, but surprisingly, many minerals and rocks satisfy the requirement well enough to be useful for nuclear age determination. These types of errors, which can beset even the most meticulous radiometric analysis, often add up to sizable total errors..." Earth And Life Through Time, 1986, p.122. The mobility of the uranium is such that as one part of a rock formation is being improvised another part can become abnormally enriched..relatively low temperatures." Scientific American, Vol.235 (6):118 "DATING MOON SAMPLES: Pitfalls And Paradoxes", Everly Driscoll, "What complicates things for the uranium-lead method is that non-radiogenic lead 204, 206, 207 and 208 also exist naturally, and scientists are not sure what the ratios of non-radiogenic to radiogenic lead were early in the moon's history...
Research & Development, p.21, 6/1982 DISSENTERS EJECTED, R. Mauger, East Carolina Univ., "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 or the discrepancies fully explained.", Contributions To Geology, Vol.15 (1): 17. of Washington, "If the laboratory results contradict the field evidence, the geologist assumes that there is something wrong with the machine date. Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent. It is obvious that radiometric technique may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.
To put it another way, 'good' dates are those that agree with the field data. ...these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years).Isotopic ages have been obtained for material from five landing sites on the moon--those of Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15 and Luna 16; each site has a different age. Ideally, any one basaltic rock from a given site should yield the same isotopic age, regardless of the method used." Science News, V.101, p.12 CONSTANT RATES? Jueneman, FAIC, "There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. Each assumption is a potential variable, the magnitude of which can seldom be ascertained.