Radiometric dating and creation science

30-Jul-2017 23:41

If radiometric dating works—and I believe it reveals accurate dates most of the time—Christians should not be intimidated.

Geologists have known for a long time that the isotope geochemistry of Earth is complex, and that radiometric dating does not always return what is considered to be a geologically-valid result, but there is no reason for old-Earth Christians to be intimidated by discrepant dates.

Actually, this give supports to the idea of a global flood. See The oldest living thing is younger than 4900 years (Talk.

Origins) Also, since tree rings can grow faster then once a year, tree ring dating might be completely off. Wong’s next rebuttal is to the statement that the original concentration of the materials need to be known. Radiometric dating does not necessarily depend on the assumption that none of the daughter material was originally present.

How radiometric dating works in general Why methods in general are inaccurate Why K-Ar dating is inaccurate The branching ratio problem How Errors Can Account for the Observed Dates Why older dates would be found lower in the geologic column especially for K-Ar dating Do different methods agree with each other on the geologic column?

Possible other sources of correlation Anomalies of radiometric dating Why a low anomaly percentage is meaningless The biostrategraphic limits issue Preponderance of K-Ar dating Excuses for anomalies Need for a double-blind test Possible changes in the decay rate Isochrons Atlantic sea floor dating Dating Meteorites Conclusion Gentry's radiohaloes in coalified wood Carbon 14 dating Tree ring chronologies Coral dating Varves Growth of coral reefs Evidence for catastrophe in the geologic column Rates of erosion Reliability of creationist sources Radiometric dating methods estimate the age of rocks using calculations based on the decay rates of radioactive elements such as uranium, strontium, and potassium.

We are told that of all the radiometric dates that are measured, only a few percent are anomalous.

A young earth is considered to be typically just 6,000 years old since this fits the creation account and some dating deductions from Genesis.

Moreover, since they claim the Earth is just 6,000 years old, these sweeping changes would have been occurring right before our eyes, during recorded history! Creationist have proposed models for accelerated decay during certain periods in time. We shouldn’t expect to see changes in our present time. Wong complains about changing constants in nature might have bad effects on the earth, but completely ignores theories proposed by creation scientists that could easily explain such models.

The rest of this is answered in full in the article accelerated decay.

The second presentation at the April 2016 Bozeman young-Earth creation conference was “What You Haven’t Been Told About Radioisotope Dating” by Dr.

Jake Hebert of the Institute for Creation Research.

A young earth is considered to be typically just 6,000 years old since this fits the creation account and some dating deductions from Genesis.

Moreover, since they claim the Earth is just 6,000 years old, these sweeping changes would have been occurring right before our eyes, during recorded history! Creationist have proposed models for accelerated decay during certain periods in time. We shouldn’t expect to see changes in our present time. Wong complains about changing constants in nature might have bad effects on the earth, but completely ignores theories proposed by creation scientists that could easily explain such models.

The rest of this is answered in full in the article accelerated decay.

The second presentation at the April 2016 Bozeman young-Earth creation conference was “What You Haven’t Been Told About Radioisotope Dating” by Dr.

Jake Hebert of the Institute for Creation Research.

Since there doesn't seem to be any systematic error that could cause so many methods to agree with each other so often, it seems that there is no other rational conclusion than to accept these dates as accurate.