Radiometric dating is least useful for dating
The bottom line is that there are only two ways to verify whether or not radiometric dating methods have any credibility at all. To compare the results with known dates based on historical and/or archeological data, 2. * The depth here refers to the depth below the surface of the water, since this volcano produced a lava flow that flowed down the mountain and into the ocean.* Notes: Where abbreviations are used: b. * Cubic Diamonds from Zaire were included because the "age" derived from them is greater than the purported (4.5 b.y.) age of the earth.To cross-check the results with one or more different methods of radiometric dating. I now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found. 479-480; Note: Though the age calculation (for sample No.This is because "common" lead contains both radiogenic (lead 206, 207 and 208) and non-radiogenic lead (204) but it does not contain any uranium.In fact, about 98% of common lead is "radiogenic" (containing lead 206, 207, 208) and only 2% non-radiogenic.
For example, In 1973, in Alberta, Canada (near the town of Grand Prairie) a high voltage line fell which caused nearby tree roots to fossilize almost instantly.To do this they have selected a certain meteorite, which contained various types of lead (including lead 204, 206, 207 and 208) but no uranium, and they have assumed that this ratio is equivalent to the earth's original lead ratio.