Radiometric dating accuracy


This is to get the average, or, most accurate date possible, within the margin of error that you allow.Are there scientists out there that will swear up and down that their dates are completely accurate?Even looking at geology alone, it is evident from the using a young earth. And, although you can come up with gross errors using radiometric dating, by and large, the millions of dates that have been accomplished lend support to their accuracy, granting, of course, a large margin of error.These "millions" of semi-accurate dates have correlated throughout the stratigraphic layers of the earth. Are they usable for giving a rough estimate of age..Two distinct sediment layers have formed in the lake every summer and winter over tens of thousands of years.The researchers collected roughly 70-metre core samples from the lake and painstakingly counted the layers to come up with a direct record stretching back 52,000 years.I can look in my scientific journals and see apparent discrepancies in dating techniques.Some may be discrepancies…some may just need a bit further explanation.



Bronk Ramsey’s team aimed to fill this gap by using sediment from bed of Lake Suigetsu, west of Tokyo.“If you’re trying to look at archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago, the ages may shift by only a few hundred years but that may be significant in putting them before or after changes in climate,” he says.Take the extinction of Neanderthals, which occurred in western Europe less than 30,000 years ago.By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.

But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock.

This is like the common phrase that Christians like to use when studying the Bible, when we say, "He pulled that out of context." When considering the date of the world, and the universe, you have to consider all the evidence, not just one portion.