Why radiometric dating doesn't work

In this clip you will see professor Edward Boudreau, a physical inorganic chemist, who teaches at the university of New Orleans, Louisiana.

See for yourself why radiometric dating doesn't work. Radiometric dating is one of the means that should prove the evolution theory is true. This clip shows why radiometric dating can't be used anymore in order to support the evolution theory.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Radiometric
• dating
• evolution
• physics
• inorganic
• chemistry

[sulljoh1]

There is a very important point they are missing. We use multiple methods of dating on a fossil and they all come up with the same age. If the dating methods are as random and unreliable as this Professor Boudreau claims they are, how in the world do all the different clocks just happen to give the same age?

I was almost taking him serious until that last sentence. The whole Big Bang theory invented to support evolution? Try googling "Edwin Hubble."

[Drweavil]

Ratings disabled = dishonesty and cowardice.

[snakeguy76]

Two minutes in and the "expert" says C-14 decays into C-12? Good Job Eddie!

[SysyphusJones]

7: The whole BBT was constructed to support evolution theory.

Well this is just flat out a lie, but useful at least in demonstrating this guy's (poorly) hidden agenda

[SysyphusJones]

5: the rate of the earth's magnetic field decrease implies it is 10,000 yrs old

The magnetic field is known to fluctuate UP and DOWN. Implying it's only decreasing is being dishonest again.

6: cosmic dust accretion has been calculated and if the universe was really billions of years old, the moon should be metres deep by now.

This argument is from an estimate made in 1960 involving a guy standing at the top of a mounting holding a smog detector.

It's been long established as simply WRONG

[SysyphusJones]

>>>

X-rays are stopped by a few cms of lead; gamma radiation requires a couple of metres; neutrinos though ... to stop a beam of neutrinos would require lead 1 light year thick!)

Subclaim about the earth's magnetic field reversal being a factor.

I don't see how magnetic fields can possibly be relevant. Neutrinos as the name suggests, pretty much don't react with anything

[SysyphusJones]

4: Rates of isotope decay may not have been constant due to different neutrino densities at some time in the past

Frankly this is really puzzling! Neutrinos are pretty much the last thing that's going to be a factor

Every second 60+ billion neutrinos go through every square cm of the earth and yet collision are incredibly rare (because the neutrino is very small:Imagine firing bullets randomly at a target the size of the solar system and hitting anything ... that's something like the scale

>>>

[SysyphusJones]

3: Rocks from recent eruptions give incorrect ages when K-Ar RD was used.

K-Ar radiometric dating involves a 1/2life of 1.3 billion yrs, and its accuracy is going to be +- hundreds of thousands of yrs at best. Anyone who uses it to test samples that are just a few decades old is using the wrong tool. This is like investigating bacteria with a telescope.

[SysyphusJones]

2: uranium leached from rock results in false age

This would be a surface effect at best; and why would uranium be more prone to leaching than the lead? (lead leaching is why lead pipe are no longer used in domestic water supplies)

For this argument to produce a false result it would need to be shown that the 2 elements leach at asymmetrically rates, and that this is not mentioned I think means we can guess the answer ...

[SysyphusJones]

Boudreau's claims and some replies

1: while discussing the U-Pb radiometric dating.... he says it's invalid because we don't know how much lead was there in the first place

Ans: It doesn't matter! A very readable explanation of why it doesn't matter can be found at meteoritestudies(.)com/protect­ed_dating.htm which describes RD of a meteorite. It uses Rb-Sr decay, but the problem of "how much decay product was there to begin with", and the solution, is the same as for U-Pb