forastero
Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011
|
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2011,21:36) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,22:00) | | You are confusing our c14 ratio problem with the decay fluctuation discussion |
You evaded answering the question when it was first posed in the context of decay rates. It is asked explicitly in those terms. Here is the question again:
Is it your assertion that:
1) environmental fluctuations can result in changes in radiometric decay rates of up to 0.5%?
2) these and similar errors, of similar magnitude, can "accumulate" to the point that you are justified in asserting objects (such as the earth) are estimated to be 227,000x older than they actually are (4,540,000,000/20,000 = 227,000)?
Rather like: Upon my discovery that when the speedometer of my car reads 70 miles per hour I am actually traveling 70.35 mph, I am justified in concluding that I may at times have moved down the interstate at over 15 million miles per hour.
Right? |
Actually, I believe its probably often much more than .05% and the perhaps weekly decay fluctuations accumulate to totally alter any reasonable measurement beyond 5000 years
Its proven though that Radiometric dating has much greater problems than fluctuating decay rates. For instance the dinosaur soft tissues. The calibrating errors and circular reasoning involved in calibration. Fluctuating production of radioisotopes. Contamination from various sources. Igneous rocks having unknown magma ratios of radioisotopes that can produce wide discrepancies in post crystallization ratios. Sedimentary rocks, which contain most fossils are even more prone to unknown mixing, contamination, and ratios.
|
