# Radiometric dating flaws debunked big beautiful girls dating

For any given rock, each kind of mineral will yield a different age, depending on how quickly the rock cooled.

If the rock was reheated at any point, the method no longer provides a straightforward interpretation of the cooling age (hence all dates are termed "apparent ages").

Before I begin, there is one set of terms you should be able to distinguish: radiometric dating is a method of estimating the age of geological events using radioactive isotopes in minerals; radioactive dating occurs in the storage room at the nuclear power plant and has very little to do with geology.

Confusion of these terms is a sure sign of geological ignorance.

While such geological complexities pose additional challenges to geochronologists, even "bad" dates can be very useful.

My hope is to convince you this is the case through the following example, and that Ai G had prematurely discredited the K-Ar dating method. Doolan provides a convincing case against the credibility of K-Ar dating.

This definition can be misleading, however, without some qualification.

First, all radiometric dating methods are scientific models used to estimate the age of geologic events, provided a number of physical assumptions regarding the rock's history are met.

Secondly, radiometric dating methods (K-Ar in particular) do not estimate the age of a rock, but the time at which a mineral in that rock was last near a given temperature (called the closing temperature).Therefore, one can use the measured ratio of potassium to argon in a given mineral to infer the time at which the mineral crystallized and began to accumulate argon (note: 40Ca is not considered in the equation, because it is a common isotope that is already abundant in the rock).Typically, one assumes that no argon (or negligible amounts thereof) was initially present, because argon is a noble gas and can easily diffuse out of minerals that are still hot.I remember reading similar reports years ago, which cited numerous cases of historical lava flows (note: historical meaning humans witnessed it) that were dated radiometrically to be a few hundred thousand to millions of years old.I was originally quite convinced by the discrepancy that radiometric dating methods were fundamentally flawed: "If radiometric dating methods are so wrong when the age is known, how can we trust them when the age is unknown?