Radioisotope dating assumptions sex dating saudi arabia
That is a six-fold difference, for samples that should be of similar age.
Note that the error estimates (the ± numbers) are small compared with the age.
However, as the results show, the error estimates say nothing about the accuracy of the ‘ages’ of the rock samples.
Furthermore, the seven samples from the small amphibolite unit near Clear Creek, which should be even closer in age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, yielded K-Ar model ‘ages’ ranging from 1,060.4 ± 28 Ma to 2,574.2 ± 73 Ma (figure 6).
Thus, when you find a piece of wood with half the ratio of carbon-14 that the atmosphere has, that means it's been dead for about 5730 years.
There are lots of minor factors that can cause the dates to be off by a small fraction.
Official publications say these rocks are more than a billion years old, but when the methods used to date them are carefully examined, a totally different story is discovered.
Clearly visible in the walls of the Inner Gorge are spectacular light-coloured rocks, such as the pink granites, (figures 1 and 2).
They might claim that they are due to the uncertain effects of metamorphism and later alteration, especially erosion and weathering. They are further confirmation of the repeated failure of all the radioisotope ‘dating’ methods to successfully date Grand Canyon rocks.
dating method turned out to be vastly different (see box, ‘Calculating the ages’, below), even for those closely spaced samples from the same outcrop of the same lava flow.
The results are not even close to each other, although the samples should all have given the same age.
It is also necessary to assume that no isotopes were gained or lost over time and that the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant at the very slow rate measured today.
The problem is that we don’t know whether these assumptions are reasonable (because they are not provable), and it is especially awkward for metamorphic rocks.