A video from the New Zealand E=Mc2 website regarding radiometric dating. Full article and more videos- http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/…

17 Responses to Radiometric Dating

  • zzzubrrr says:

    And so how do you know that when the rock formed there was only uranium in
    there that you found, no any lead?

  • Nathan Wood says:

    the thing about radio metric dating and the scientific literature that
    proves its true to beyond reasonable doubt is that is is incredibly
    complex. its doubters have hardly had the education or will to completely
    understand the scientific method and rigorous peer review that has gone
    into verifying half lives and ancient dates for that matter. what is often
    missed by opponents to radiometric datings accuracy is that is is verified
    and cross referenced with many different radiometric clocks. an analogy
    that would illustrate this point is measuring the velocity of a moving car.
    we can use the speedometer in the car, a radar gun, or perhaps a stop watch
    and time the distance travelled over time. they will all agree with a
    certain number within a small margin of error. the same type of concept
    applies to dating rocks.

  • Noah Benzing says:

    I dated a rock once…. she just kind of laid around all day.

  • James Dillon says:

    I was explaining to friend at work about how old the earth is and she said
    it’s only 6000 years. I explained to her that geologists have dated it at
    4.54 billion and told her that it was determined by using radiometric
    dating. I even used a very simplified explanation of it stating that
    radiometric dating uses the decay of radio active partials that decay at
    know rates.
    She answered with ” Carbon dating is not a accurate method”
    This is why creationists think there is a raging debate in the science
    community cause they shut down and plan their response before you even
    finish providing information to them.

  • Frank Reiser M.S. says:

    What if your sample contained different amounts what what is considered the
    daughter mineral?

  • it'sme says:


  • javier18526 says:

    is unreliable 

  • Mauserman Anderson says:

    WOW!! Warriorprince000000brains is the dumbest retard on the internet to
    date. Hey, Warriorpisspot, shove your god’s bible up your ass sideways and
    we can arrange to have someone carbon date that for you. Ignorant cunt.

  • David Dees says:

    The fact of the matter is nobody knows how old the earth is. There are far
    too many variables to accurately say how old the earth is. Radiometric
    dating is far too simple of a theory and ignores an infinite amount of
    variables that can affect it’s accuracy. 

  • donramonavila says:


  • oma oys says:

    Thank you and al the physicists for all the effort

  • GSpotter63 says:

    The scientific community has been using radiometric dating to verify the
    assumed dates of the geologic column and it’s index fossils for about 100
    years now. So tell me, How can one be certain that their dating system is
    accurate? What method have they used to verify it’s results?

    I have been told that the decay rate of the isotopes used in the dating
    methods have been thoroughly tested and it is just a matter of doing the
    math. ( That is, if the myriad of un-testable variables are not taken into

    Well, Look it up.

    The RATE Group: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE). This
    assembly of PhD scientists gathered more than 300 samples of igneous rock
    from over 30 volcanic sites around the world and sent those samples to
    multiple labs for dating using 4 different radiometric dating methods.
    (Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, Led-Led, Samarium-Neodymium) In
    ((EVERY SINGLE CASE)) the results returned were inconsistent with each
    other and were hundreds of millions to billions of years off of the
    historically known ages of the samples. Samples that were dated by
    eyewitness and imperial observation.

    Is this proof that the radio isotope dating methods are off and do not work?

    It has been explained to me many times, and I fully understand. ” You can’t
    use radiometric dating to date an igneous rock younger than 10,000 years.
    Radiometric dating was never intended to date something so young and would
    give inaccurate results.”


    But stop and think about that for a second, if the entire world was indeed
    less than 10,000 years old, then every single rock in the entire world
    would be less than 10,000 years old. So, no matter what rocks we tested,
    the results would be in error, and indicate that they are ALL hundreds of
    thousands to billions of years old regardless of their actual true date.

    So, if the data provided by radiometric dating can fit both the young world
    paradigm, as well as the old would paradigm, then radiometric dating proves
    absolutely nothing.

    So tell me again, If the dating system can fit both paradigms. How can one
    be certain that the dates returned by the dating system fits evolution and
    not a young earth? What method have they used to verify that it fits theirs?

    Were the dates returned by the radio dating system verified by observable,
    repeatable, and verifiable data, or to something CONTRIVED in their own
    minds over 200 years ago? (AKA the igneous rocks found in the geologic
    column and their ASSIGNED DATES)

    Thought check—–

    Which of these two methods of determining the length of a pipe would give
    the most reliable results?

    1. The guesses gathered from 1000,000 people and averaged out?


    2. The data acquired from the use of a measuring tape? ( something that can
    be observed, demonstrated, and repeated ).

    So then, which of these two methods of determining the accuracy of a radio
    metric dating system would give the most reliable results?

    1. Comparing the dating system to the guesses of 100,000 people? (AKA the
    igneous rocks found in the geologic column and their ASSIGNED DATES,
    something that Charles Lyle and his cronies CONTRIVED in their own mind 200
    years ago). Igneous rocks that I must point out that nobody ever saw form.


    2. Testing the dating methods against igneous rocks from places like Mt.
    Saint Helens, the Hawaiian volcanoes, or any number of hundreds of other
    volcanoes throughout the world in which man actually watched and recorded
    the date that the rocks were formed on?

    Now, if you think that the geologic column, index fossils, and all their
    assigned dates CONTRIVED IN THE MINDS of Charles Lyle and the myriad of
    scientists over the last 200 years are more reliable then something that is
    observable, repeatable, and verifiable, today, then you might need to stand
    back a bit and take another look at the motivation of your dreadful
    deductive reasoning.

  • lantern bearer says:

    The rate of isotopic decay is unquestionable. But the earth has suffered so
    many cataclysms that to posit that there has been no addition or gain or
    loss of parent isotope during the rock’s history or no gain or loss of
    daughter product during the rock’s history is simply UNREALISTIC …that
    puts this method and the entire fossil dating at odds with the history of
    the planet and therefore a deeper science.

  • TakeSomeAdvice says:

    I heard a smart sounding accent and ‘scientist’ say something was true, so
    I believe it. He’s a smarty pants. He’s a smarty. 

  • BiggerJose says:

    Hai me Rinaldis

  • islandonlinenews says:

    so how much radioactive material, uranium I guess, was in the rock when it
    formed? how long did it take for that rock to form? has any uranium or lead
    escaped the rock? wouldn’t all these factors greatly effect the age? how
    can you be confident in the age with all these unknown variables?

  • warriorprince101010 says:

    Rea danswers in genesis, solid science. You need to prove radiometric
    dating, you have failed.


Recent Comments

Join With Us