Radiometric dating is based on
Radiometric dating is based on - 100 free lonely housewives dating sites
Therefore, in virtually every case, scientists do not know what the original condition of the rock was; and, even if they did know, they don't any more due to heat contamination, mixing, and leaching. Snelling in an article on this topic Note: As for the few cases where scientists do know what the "original" condition (or date of eruption) was, they still have not been able to come up with the correct "date" for the age of the rock without all sorts of fancy footwork and massaging of data.
In this regard it should also be pointed out that for the theory of life from non-life, and/or from amoeba to jellyfish, to man to have any chance at all of being true, then the earth must be very old. can be summarized as follows: In other words, something in the past caused a significant amount of helium to build up inside these zircons (such as from a rapid decay episode of uranium), yet, in spite of the fact that helium has been observed to leak out readily from these zircons, it has not done so: simply because it hasn't had enough time to do so -- suggesting that the zircons themselves are only a few thousand years old."There is evidence to show ...When scientists at the University of Regina, Saskatchewan were asked what the results would be if these roots were dated by Potassium Argon method.Their response was that the results: Two well-documented examples of "heat contamination" are the 18 eruptions from two Hawaiian volcanoes.Although these eruptions were less than 200 years old, the radiometric "dates" obtained from them were 140 million to 2.96 billion years for one, and from 0 to 29 million years for the other -- depending upon the (ocean) depth at which the lava sample was obtained. This also brings up an important question: If radiometric dating methods are unable to produce the correct date in cases where the actual date of eruption is known, why should we believe that these same methods can produce accurate dates when the date of eruption is unknown?The point is simply this: radiometric dating is known to produce grossly erroneous dates when heat is involved in the formation or fossilization process.To do this they have selected a certain meteorite, which contained various types of lead (including lead 204, 206, 207 and 208) but no uranium, and they have assumed that this ratio is equivalent to the earth's original lead ratio.
They did this because it is almost certain that these lead isotopes were all present in large quantities when the earth was created.
If, on the other hand, it is found that the radii vary, then this is proof that the half-life of that decay is not constant. This was first shown by Joly and Henderson who conducted most of the early studies on pleochroic haloes. We have solid evidence that radioactive decay rates cannot have been constant.
This proves that the half-lives of the uranium and thorium radioactive decays vary ... any age determination using this method of dating will be inaccurate because it is based on an invalid assumption." " ... For example, discordant dates have been obtained on the same rocks by the Given ample evidence observable in the present that decay rates have not been constant throughout the supposed deep time, it is not reasonable to assume they have been uniform through unobservable eons.
This is because "common" lead contains both radiogenic (lead 206, 207 and 208) and non-radiogenic lead (204) but it does not contain any uranium.
In fact, about 98% of common lead is "radiogenic" (containing lead 206, 207, 208) and only 2% non-radiogenic.
With the exception of Carbon-14, radiometric dating is used to date either igneous or metamorphic rocks that contain radioactive elements such as uranium, thorium, argon, etc. Now when the uranium or thorium disintegrates, the alpha particles which are emitted are slowed down by the crystals in which the grains of the uranium- or thorium-bearing minerals are embedded.