For Uranium/Lead dating this means that some of the uranium that was initially present would be "leached" out of the rock.
And since the only rocks which yield ages in excess of 100,000 years are of volcanic origin, this method of dating the earth is not based on science, but rather speculation and subjective reasoning.
Unfortunately, the public is rarely informed of these facts. * "Allende" is the name given to the meteorite that was used to "date" the age of the earth. It is the site where the famous 1470 skull was found.
The bottom line is that there are only two ways to verify whether or not radiometric dating methods have any credibility at all. To compare the results with known dates based on historical and/or archeological data, 2. * The depth here refers to the depth below the surface of the water, since this volcano produced a lava flow that flowed down the mountain and into the ocean.* Notes: Where abbreviations are used: b. * Cubic Diamonds from Zaire were included because the "age" derived from them is greater than the purported (4.5 b.y.) age of the earth.
To cross-check the results with one or more different methods of radiometric dating. I now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found. 479-480; Note: Though the age calculation (for sample No.
The second assumption is much more speculative since there is no way to verify whether or not some (or most) of the daughter element was already present when the rock solidified. However, in some cases, a few scientists are telling us that they have solved this problem.
For example, with the uranium/lead method scientists have attempted to estimate what the original ratio (of uranium-238 to lead-206) was when the Earth formed.
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.
In other words, the magnitude of the radius of a pleochroic halo in a particular crystal depends on the half-life of the decay responsible for the alpha particle emission. the radii of pleochroic haloes corresponding to a definite decay in a particular mineral are ...