Uranium lead dating meteorites dating your best friend39s crush
And since the earth is not a closed system, these last two assumptions make radiometric dating highly subjective and questionable.For example, if a rock sample was below the water table at any time, leaching would take place.
In regard to the radiometric dating of rocks, it is known that various different radiometric methods often yield quite discordant dates for the same rock, thus proving that they cannot all be correct.
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.
What is less commonly known are any of the details of how the issue was settled: such as that the 4.5 billion year 'date' came from a single meteorite that was assumed to be the same age as the earth's core.
And since this favored 'date' is the only one that's trumpeted by the media it is the only date that many assume to be correct.