In this regard, pro-evolution scientists are very selective about which dates they accept and which ones they reject: such as any date that is contrary to the Geological Time Chart -- to which all radiometric dates must fall in line with.
In this regard it should also be pointed out that for the theory of life from non-life, and/or from amoeba to jellyfish, to man to have any chance at all of being true, then the earth must be very old. can be summarized as follows: In other words, something in the past caused a significant amount of helium to build up inside these zircons (such as from a rapid decay episode of uranium), yet, in spite of the fact that helium has been observed to leak out readily from these zircons, it has not done so: simply because it hasn't had enough time to do so -- suggesting that the zircons themselves are only a few thousand years old."There is evidence to show ...
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.
What is less commonly known are any of the details of how the issue was settled: such as that the 4.5 billion year 'date' came from a single meteorite that was assumed to be the same age as the earth's core.
And since this favored 'date' is the only one that's trumpeted by the media it is the only date that many assume to be correct.
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.
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.
With the exception of Carbon-14, radiometric dating is used to date either igneous or metamorphic rocks that contain radioactive elements such as uranium, thorium, argon, etc. Now when the uranium or thorium disintegrates, the alpha particles which are emitted are slowed down by the crystals in which the grains of the uranium- or thorium-bearing minerals are embedded.
And even though various radioactive elements have been used to 'date' such rocks, for the most part, the methods are the same. This means that if you had some pure uranium-238 with no lead, that 4.5 billion years later, one half of it would have decayed into its stable daughter product (lead-206). Where these alpha particles finally stop, crystal deformation occurs (and) shows up as a discolouration or a darkening of the crystals.
They consist of measuring the amount of radiometric (mother) element and comparing it to the amount of stable (daughter) element. Uranium is radioactive, which means it is in the process of changing from an unstable element into a stable one. And after 9 billion years 75% of it would be lead and 25% uranium, and so on. (an) episode of drastically accelerated decay has ... When the crystal is looked at under a microscope, these discolourations appear as dark ringshence the name "pleochroic halo".