This is not an example of malfeasance, but rather the result of assuming that the theory of evolution has been proved reliable, and therefore these seeming anomalies are due to contamination or other causes of analytical error.These out of place fossils or rocks are not considered a reason to question the theory.Radiometric dating is based on the decay rate of these isotopes into stable nonradioactive isotopes.To date an object, scientists measure the quantity of parent and daughter isotope in a sample, and use the atomic decay rate to determine its possible age.In these cases, lava of a known age of no more than several thousand years (and in one case, no more than ten years) had argon in it when it formed, so that the rock was calculated by K-Ar dating to be millions of years old, even though it was known to be only thousands of years old.
They cite several examples of discordant dates when multiple methods are tried on the same rock, many anecdotes of dating techniques giving obviously wrong data (including some where rock formed after 1900 was dated as being over 3 million years, such as at Mt.
Ngauruhoe John Woodmorappe claims that discrepancy in data is prevalent, and accuses scientists of throwing out most of the inaccurate results, giving the illusion of accuracy.
He also indicates how mixed families of rock can give anomalous isochron readings, some of which would indicate a negative age for certain rocks.
His book, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, documents approximately 200 quotes by secular geologists indicating problems with the various dating methods.
As we learned in the previous lesson, index fossils and superposition are effective methods of determining the relative age of objects.
While astronomers have found that magnetars emit radiation that could cause bouts of accelerated decay, and that these bouts may be more common than originally thought, the amount of heat produced by the radiation during the short period presents a problem for creationists.