Doubleyourdating101 com

Posted by / 13-Nov-2017 08:13

However, unlike the hourglass whose accuracy can be tested by turning it upside down and comparing it to trustworthy clocks, the reliability of the radioactive “clock” is subject to three unprovable assumptions.No geologist was present when the rocks were formed to see their contents, and no geologist was present to measure how fast the radioactive “clock” has been running through the millions of years that supposedly passed after the rock was formed.Obviously, these eruptions took place very recently, after the Canyon’s layers were deposited ().These basalts yield ages of up to 1 million years based on the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes in the rocks.

Yet lava flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected.1 For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) ( age yield incorrect old potassium-argon ages due to the extra argon-40 that they inherited from the erupting volcanoes, then ancient lava flows of unknown ages could likewise have inherited extra argon-40 and yield excessively old ages.They also measure the sand grains in the bottom bowl (the daughter isotope, such as lead-206 or argon-40, respectively).Based on these observations and the known rate of radioactive decay, they estimate the time it has taken for the daughter isotope to accumulate in the rock.An hourglass is a helpful analogy to explain how geologists calculate the ages of rocks.When we look at sand in an hourglass, we can estimate how much time has passed based on the amount of sand that has fallen to the bottom.

doubleyourdating101 com-34doubleyourdating101 com-28doubleyourdating101 com-13

Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old.