Fusion christian dating
As someone who has studied radioactivity in detail, I have always been a bit amused by the assertion that radioactive dating is a precise way to determine the age of an object.This false notion is often promoted when radioactive dates are listed with utterly unrealistic error bars.Since a neutron has no charge, it must become positively charged after emitting an electron. Of course, there are all sorts of uncertainties involved.How much Sr-87 was in the rock when it first formed?
The elements rubidium and strontium are found in many rocks. As illustrated above, a neutron in a Rb-87 atom can eject an electron (often called a beta particle), which has a negative charge. We know how long it takes Rb-87 to turn into Sr-87, so in principle, if we analyze the amount of Rb-87 and Sr-87 in a rock, we should be able to tell how long the decay has been occurring.However, it’s important to note that some radioactive dates (like those that come from carbon-14) don’t use the isochron method, so they aren’t affected by this particular flaw.As a young-earth creationist, I look at this issue in a different way.Their age was measured to be 6.0 /- 0.3 billion years old. Those who are committed to an ancient age for the earth currently believe that it is 4.6 billion years old.Obviously, then, the error in that measurement is 1.4 billion years, not 0.3 billion years!
If those rocks really have been sitting around on the moon for billions of years, I suspect that the the wide range of physical and chemical processes which occurred over that time period had a much more profound effect on the uncertainty of the age determination.