Radiometric Dating Revisited

I apologize for the abrupt ending. This is basically because I'm lazy and couldn't be bothered to re-record the last bit after I found out the first recording sounded like sh#t.
It wasn't important though, it was just me signing off, so all the pertinent information is still there. It just ends rather abruptly.

Anyway, this video seeks to explain in easily understandable terms, why scientists use so many different radiometric dating techniques.
It doesn't touch on the alternate dating techniques, but of course the fact that these agree with radiometric dating just serves to underline the fact that radiometric dating works!

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• radiometric
• dating
• age
• young
• earth
• creationists
• eat
• my
• decaying
• atoms
• creation
• creationism

[stupidtreehugger]

02:40 "Taking acount that some of the particles that the original decays into may already have been present." How can you know what was there in the past? What do you make of Polonium halos? Also, aren't you hiding the principle supposition of radiometric dating: HOW MUCH ISOTOPE WAS PRESENT TO BEGIN WITH???? And when one measures active against decayed product, again: how does one know how much original 'decayed' product was already there?

[CapnOrdinary]

You can either use isochron dating (and thus calculate the start conditions) or you can make assumptions. In either case, you date the same sample with several different methods, and only if they yield similar results do you accept the dating. It really is quite simple.

I recommend you search the talk origins archive before asking further stupid questions.

Polonium's a product of uranium decay, and the halos have only ever been found in uranium rich rock, where we expect 'em.

[stupidtreehugger]

Also, re:"Polonium's a product of uranium decay, and the halos have only ever been found in uranium rich rock, where we expect 'em":

From testimony of hostile witness Dr BG Dalrymple: Polonium-218 is derived in this occasion from radon-222. And what he has found is that the polonium haloes, and this is what he claims to have found, are the polonium-218 haloes, but not radon-222 haloes.

[CapnOrdinary]

The talk origins archive has an FAQ on this subject. Since what you'd get from me would be a reiteration of what is stated there, pretty much, I suggest you simply go there, rather than waste both our times with this.

[XGralgrathor]

But then again, we wouldn't have had to invent the microwave: your goose would have been instantly cooked anyway.

[Kurce12345]

Ha! Awesome video! I love the Black Mesa reference. I am a HUGE fan of the Half-Life games. I found this video because I have heard claims that radiometric dating is hugely inaccurate. I'm glad this video cleared it up.

[bluemoonrising26]

@coolvideo28

1. LMAO, Anno Domini means "IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD" anyway you fucktarded mong. Who's trying to remove God!? If Jesus was Born in AD1, then it wouldn't be AFTER DEATH anyway you retard.

2. Firstly, it isn't, you clown, and secondly, what exactly would this prove regarding the VALIDITY of Christian belief?

3. I have seen painters paint, I have seen builders build. I have never seen a God create a Universe, however.

4. No, I don't. Funny response though.

5. All fallacious crap.

[coolvideo28]

@bluemoonrising26

1 AD stands for AFTER DEATH, but tons of people have been trying to change what it stands 4 because they hate God & want to remove it from our dating system

2. Yes our whole dating system is based on JESUS Christ U even admit it after U say it isnt.

3. U know everything needed a Creato,r no 1 can honestly look around & say I think it all magically fell into place lol.

4 U believe in God U pretend you dont its sad.

5 watch the videos on my channel tons of evidence

[bluemoonrising26]

@coolvideo28

1) AD doesn't even stand for After Death you clown, it stands for Anno Domini.

2) No, we do not base our entire dating system on Christ. The year, yes, but even those who believe in Jesus now say he would have been born around 4AD.

3) "Look around everything is proof" - Circular Reasoning, a favourite technique of the Creatard.

4) "I ruined your denial" - WTF does this even mean!?

5) Just give me one piece of evidence that you feel, above ALL others, proves God's existence.

[coolvideo28]

@bluemoonrising26 HAHAhahahaa you might want to check your calander its 2011 AD (after death) After JESUS CHRISTS death so I guess the world knows Jesus exists and knows he not only lived but he was so important we base our entire calander/dating system on JESUS CHRISTs life death and resurection. look around everything is proof of a Creator God Creation. You believe in God you are fighting to stay in denial and I ruined your denial so you flip out on me like a 11 year old

[bluemoonrising26]

@coolvideo28

Fuck off moron, there is ZERO evidence for Creationism, ZERO evidence that Jesus lived, ZERO evidence that God exists and even ZERO logical or philosophical arguments for His existence that can withstand scrutiny.

Shouting "You lie! You lie!" is not true, not an argument and not proof of anything other than your own fucktardedness. Now crawl back under your rock and die a painful death.

[coolvideo28]

This whole Video is Nonsense Fairytales No Science at all. You cant say Once upon a time we think maybe that poss. there was this much of this & this much of that in this rock, so since it is decaying at a rate of this Now we will ASSUME everything else. This isnt Science its a Fairtale how do people fall for such garbage. No evolution dating method is Science they are all based on ASSUMPTIONS stacked upon tons of lies. Anyone want to learn some Real Science check out my Favorited Videos.

[gregrutz]

AND Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old before dating methods showed the earth is billions of years old.

[stupidtreehugger]

I like you too dumbsickle. Least you got a sense of humour. If you can't have a laugh what's the point of being here.

[kaminarigaston]

I like you ostrich boy.