Radioactive dating wwwoasisdating com
If those rocks really have been sitting around on the moon for billions of years, I suspect that the the wide range of physical and chemical processes which occurred over that time period had a much more profound effect on the uncertainty of the age determination.This is best illustrated by the radioactive age of a sample of diamonds from Zaire.The ratio of Sr-87 to Sr-86 is graphed versus the ratio of Rb-87 to Sr-86 for several different parts of the rock. Sr-86 is another stable form of strontium, but it isn’t produced by radioactive decay.
Obviously, then, the error in that measurement is 1.4 billion years, not 0.3 billion years!It refers to one specific source of error – the uncertainty in the measurement of the amounts of various atoms used in the analysis.Most likely, that is the least important source of error.As someone who has studied radioactivity in detail, I have always been a bit amused by the assertion that radioactive dating is a precise way to determine the age of an object.This false notion is often promoted when radioactive dates are listed with utterly unrealistic error bars.
As I have stated previously, we just don’t know a lot about radioactive decay.