Comparison of radiometric dating techniques
In other words, the magnitude of the radius of a pleochroic halo in a particular crystal depends on the half-life of the decay responsible for the alpha particle emission. the radii of pleochroic haloes corresponding to a definite decay in a particular mineral are ...(the same) size, then it can be safely assumed that the half-life of that decay is a constant.There are many ways to keep track of time, the most reliable of which is to use actual records such as counting hours, days, weeks, and years.However, when we speak of the distant past, there are no historical records and thus no verifiable way to prove that a certain 'date' is correct.There are at least 67 different uniformitarian (the present is the key to the past) methods of dating the earth other than long-age radiometric dating: each of which yield ages of less than 500 million years.Yet all these other science-based methods that point to a much younger age than 4.5 billion years for earth's age are ignored or rejected by evolution-believing people with degrees from college who apparently think that nobody (of importance) made them. Yet when asked why they reject all but the oldest science-based dating methods, the answer often given is that (they think) long-age radiometric dating is more reliable and that science settled the matter of the earth's age many years ago.
For example, if a rock sample was below the water table at any time, leaching would take place.
In many cases it is quite difficult to prove whether one method is superior to another: and in this regard, the only way of doing so is to closely examine how each method works and try to find fault with it.
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.
When scientists at the University of Regina, Saskatchewan were asked what the results would be if these roots were dated by Potassium Argon method.
Their response was that the results: Two well-documented examples of "heat contamination" are the 18 eruptions from two Hawaiian volcanoes.
Search for comparison of radiometric dating techniques:
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?