Define radiometric dating method
In the case of the initial conditions, no scientist can ever be sure as to what they were, because no scientist was present here on the earth at its origin.
Thus the amount of daughter isotope that has actually been derived from the parent isotope by radioactive decay is unknown, since some of the daughter isotope might have been present with its respective parent isotope at the time of the earth’s origin.
To achieve stability, some ‘particles’ are ejected from the atoms, and these moving ‘particles’ constitute the radioactivity measured by Geiger counters and the like.
The end result is stable atoms of the ‘daughter’ elements lead, argon, and strontium respectively.
At time t = 0, the hourglass is turned upside-down so that all the sand starts in the top bowl.
By time t = 1 hour, all the sand is supposed to have fallen into the bottom glass bowl.
So slick and convincing are the presentations of results, particularly in glossy media and museum propaganda, that no one even bothers to question how these dating methods work, what assumptions are involved, and how reliable they are. The answers are not only instructive, but demolish the evolutionary geologist’s case for a 4.5-billion-year old earth.However, not all meteorites have the same uraniumthorium- lead isotopic composition, so why should the isotopic composition of these particular meteorites be considered to be the ‘correct’ composition for the earth at its origin rather than some other composition found in other meteorites?Furthermore, even if today’s scientists believe they have the methods, for example graphical and mathematical, for determining how much of the daughter isotope might have been present either at the origin of the earth or the origin of the rock being dated, no one can ever be sure that these ‘answers’ are correct, because there was no scientist present at the beginning to observe those initial conditions, even though the scientists’ calculations may be extremely logical.The big surprise is that the attack has come from an evolutionary geologist and has been published in a secular scientific journal! First, let’ s find out how radioactive dating methods are supposed to work.Some types (technically known as ‘isotopes’) of ‘parent’ elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium and rubidium are said to be radioactive because the nuclei of the atoms are unstable, resulting in readjustments between the ‘particles’ (primarily neutrons and protons) in the nuclei with time.Thus the first step in the radioactive dating technique is to measure the amounts of the parent and daughter elements (isotopes) in a rock sample via chemical analyses.This is done in specially equipped laboratories with sophisticated instruments capable of very good precision and accuracy, so in general there is no quarrel with the resulting chemical analyses.The final assumption is, of course, that the radioactive decay rates have remained constant.However, once again, this assumption can in no way be proved, because there were no human observers present right throughout the earth’s history to be constantly measuring the radioactive decay rates and to have recorded them.However, it is with the interpretation of the chemical analyses of the radioactive parents and resultant daughters that the problems with radioactive dating of rocks begin.In order to interpret these chemical analyses, geochronologists must make three vital assumptions, otherwise the radioactive ‘clock’ cannot be made to ‘read’ the ‘age’ of the rocks.