Most radiometric arguments were said to favor the 2.6 MY date, but the paleontological arguments favored the 1.8 MY date-(that is where the skull would best fit evolutionary theory).
Between 19 several teams made a number of radiometric measurements, and the results clustered around three ages-1.8 MY, 2.4 MY, and 2.6 MY.
Each team criticized the others’ techniques of rock sample selection.
Author: By Curt Sewell“How can creationists expect people to accept a young earth when science has proved through radiometric dating that the earth is billions of years old?
” This article addresses that question, which represents the thinking of a large number of people today.
Reasons given usually involved detrital intrusion, leakage or leaching of some of the isotopes in the sample, and sometimes the initial isotopic content of the sample.
For K-Ar dates, it’s easy to blame argon loss if the reported age is too short, or argon absorption if it’s too long.
All of these dating methods begin with some radioactive isotope such as U-238, U-235, Th-232, K-40, or Rb-87. These elements are naturally radioactive, that is, they spontaneously emit an alpha or a beta particle and, as a result, are transformed into some different element, called the “daughter” isotopes.
For those who would like more details, these systems are briefly described in the boxes on the following pages.
Nontechnical readers can skip the box-figures, however, without losing much.
Experimental Errors The methods that give ancient ages produce almost as many “wrong” answers as “right” ones.
The second broad category is sometimes called “heavy-metal dating,” and includes Uranium-Thorium-Lead, Rubidium-Strontium, and Potassium- Argon systems.