Sep 21, For more than ten years now a paper by Roger Wiens entitled 'Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective' has been saying that radio-isotopic. Other creationists have focused on instances in which radiometric dating seems to Try, for example, wearing a watch that is not waterproof while swimming. Oct 27, From the listed genealogies, the creation of the universe happened about years ago. Is radiometric dating a reliable method for estimating the age of something . As we will see below, this assumption is very dubious.
There is also a lot of evidence that dating radiometric Creationist view is too much C within supposedly old materials. Crater at Mount St. Helens Geologist Dr Steve Austin dated rocks from two lava flows in two different layers in the Grand Dating radiometric Creationist view and found the dating radiometric Creationist view older rocks to be million years younger in Cameroon Prostitute the higher younger rocks.
Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0. Different radiometric dating methods, on the same materials, often give very different results as evidenced by Mt.
A few weeks later, because of a different radiometric dating method using the phosphate mineral called apatite, scientists concluded that the last of the dinosaurs may have wandered around the canyon 65 million years ago. Some were only millions of years old, while others were 28 billion years old.
So geologists research how other geologists have interpreted the other rocks in the area in order to find out what sort of dates they would expect. Then they invent a story to explain the numbers as part of the geological history of the area. You only accept the date if it agrees with what you already think it should be. Yet the same uranium dating radiometric Creationist view also produced abundant helium, but only 6, years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals.
A Christian response to radiometric dating - inheron.com
In this assumption was shown to be highly questionable. Despite this, the momentum gained in the two decades prior to has made 4. There are dozens of natural chronometers based on the principle of uniformity not accounting for a catastrophic flood that give estimates for the age of the earth ranging from less than 10, years to millions of years.
The majority of these chronometers give ages dating radiometric Creationist view younger than the presently accepted evolutionary age for the earth. Would that higher dosage of radiation and heat have been harmful or helpful to evolution?
The blind spot dating radiometric Creationist view evolutionary thinking is the basic assumptions evolutionists make employing each method. Their strong bias for a very old universe causes them to make assumptions that will favor their bias. He bases this on the belief that the earth is 4.
It seems it is impossible to ever know what were the initial amounts of U and Pb The same is true for dating methods dating radiometric Creationist view other isotopes. Virtually all the initial thorium is still there, meaning not enough time has passed for significant decay of thorium. The spectroscopic evidence from 20 nearby stars presented by H. Butcher confirmed what Nobel physicist William Fowler advocated for many years: When older dates were obtained by a different way of measuring the ratio of lead and uranium, geologists decided the older dates were correct.
A limitation with all forms of radiometric dating is that they depend on the presence of certain elements in the dating radiometric Creationist view to be dated. Carbon dating works on organic matter, all of which contains carbon. However it is less useful for dating metal or other inorganic objects.
Most rocks contain uranium, allowing uranium-lead and similar methods to date them. Other elements dating radiometric Creationist view for dating, such as rubidium, occur in some minerals but not others, restricting usefulness. Carbon decays almost completely withinyears of the organism dying, and many fossils and rock strata are hundreds of times older than that.
To date older fossils, other methods are used, such as potassium-argon or argon-argon dating. Other forms of dating dating radiometric Creationist view on reactive minerals like rubidium or potassium can date older finds including fossils, but have the limitation that it is easy for ions to move into rocks post-formation so that care must be taken to consider geology and other factors.
Radiometric dating and YEC[ edit ] See the main article on this topic: There are some mathematical methods by which scientists attempt to estimate the initial quantity of elements in a rock, so that they can compensate for elements like argon that dating radiometric Creationist view have been present when the rock first formed. Such techniques are called isochron methods.
They are mathematically clever, and we may explore them in a future article. However, like the model-age method, they are known to give incorrect answers dating radiometric Creationist view applied to rocks of known age. And neither the model-age method nor the isochron method are able to assess the assumption that the decay rate is uniform. As we will see below, this assumption is very dubious.
RATE Years ago, dating radiometric Creationist view group of creation scientists set out to explore the question of why radiometric dating methods dating radiometric Creationist view inflated age estimates. We know they do because of the aforementioned tests on rocks whose origins were observed.
But why? Which of the three main assumptions initial conditions are known, rate of decay is known, the system is close is false? To answer this question, several creation geologists and physicists came together to form the RATE research initiative Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. This multi-year research project engaged in several different avenues of study, and found some fascinating results. As mentioned above, the isochron method uses some mathematical techniques in an attempt to estimate the initial conditions and assess the closed-ness of the system.
However, neither it nor the model-age method allow for the possibility that radioactive decay might have occurred at a different rate in the past. In other words, all radiometric dating radiometric Creationist view methods assume that the half-life of any given radioactive element has always been the same as it is today. If that assumption is false, then all radiometric age dating radiometric Creationist view will be unreliable.
As it turns out, there is compelling for in Tallahassee fun Looking love for that the half-lives of certain slow-decaying radioactive elements were much smaller in the past.
This may be the main reason why radiometric dating often gives vastly inflated age estimates. First, a bit of background information is in order. Most physicists had assumed that radioactive half-lives have always been what they are today. Many experiments have confirmed that most forms of radioactive decay are independent of temperature, pressure, external environment, etc.
In other words, the half-life of carbon is years, and there is nothing you can do to change it. Given the dating radiometric Creationist view of altering these half-lives in a laboratory, it made sense for scientists to assume that such half-lives have always been the same throughout earth history. But we now know that this is wrong. In fact, it is very wrong.
More recently, scientists have been able to change the half-lives of some forms of radioactive decay in a laboratory by drastic amounts. However, by ionizing the Rhenium removing all its electronsscientists were able to reduce the half-life to only 33 years!
Radiometric Dating and Creation Science
In other words, the Rhenium decays over 1 billion times faster under such conditions. Thus, any age estimates based on Rhenium-Osmium decay may be vastly inflated. Accelerated Radioactive Decay The RATE research initiative found compelling evidence that other radioactive elements also had much shorter half-lives in the past.
Several lines of evidence suggest this. But for brevity and clarity, I will mention only one. This involves the decay of uranium into lead Unlike the potassium-argon decay, the uranium-lead decay is not a one-step process. Rather, it is a step process. Uranium decays in Otaru Slut thorium, which is also radioactive and decays into polonium, which decays into uranium, and so on, eventually resulting in lead, which is stable.
Eight of these fourteen decays release an alpha-particle: The helium nucleus quickly attracts a couple of electrons from the environment to become a neutral helium atom.
So, for every one atom of uranium that converts into lead, eight helium atoms are produced. Helium gas is therefore a byproduct of uranium decay. And since helium is a gas, it can leak through the rocks and will eventually escape into the atmosphere. The RATE scientists measured the rate at which helium escapes, and it is fairly high. Therefore, if the rocks were billions of years old, the helium would have had plenty of time to escape, and there would be very little helium in the rocks.
However, the RATE team found that rocks have a great deal of helium within them. In fact, the amount of helium in the rocks is perfectly consistent with their biblical age of a few thousand years! It is wildly inconsistent with billions of years. But the fact that such helium is present also indicates that a great deal of radioactive decay has happened; a lot of uranium atoms have decayed into lead, producing the helium.
At the current half-life of uranium, this would take billions of years. But if it actually took billions dating radiometric Creationist view years, then the dating radiometric Creationist view would have escaped the rocks. The only reasonable explanation that fits all the data is that the half-life of uranium was much smaller in the past.
That is, in the past, uranium transformed into lead much faster than it does today. The RATE team found similar evidence for other forms of radioactive decay.
Apparently, during the creation week and possibly during the dating radiometric Creationist view of dating radiometric Creationist view global flood, radioactive decay rates were much faster than they are today. The RATE team also found that the acceleration of radioactive decay was greater for elements with longer half-lives, and less for elements with shorter half-lives.
All radiometric dating methods used on rocks assume that the half-life of the decay has always been what it is today. Dating radiometric Creationist view we now have compelling evidence that this assumption is false. And since the decay rate was much faster in the past, those who dating radiometric Creationist view not compensate for this will end up with age-estimates that are vastly inflated from the true age of the rock.
This of course is exactly what we observe. We already knew that radiometric dating tends to dating radiometric Creationist view ages that are much older than the true age. Now we know why. Carbon Dating For whatever reason, many people have the false impression that carbon dating is what secular scientists use to estimate the age of earth rocks at billions of years.
Carbon dating is not used on rocks, because rocks do not have much carbon in them. And with a half-life of only years, carbon does not last long enough to give an age estimate if something were truly millions of years old.
All the carbon would be gone after one million years. To estimate the ages of rocks, secular scientists use elements with much longer half-lives, such as uranium, potassium, and rubidium Animals and plants contain abundant carbon. Carbon dating is therefore dating radiometric Creationist view most frequently dating radiometric Creationist view animal or plant remains. The method gives an estimation of how long ago the organism died. Most carbon is c; the nucleus contains six protons and six neutrons.
Carbon is stable. A small fraction of carbon is c, which contains eight neutrons rather than dating radiometric Creationist view. Carbon is produced in the upper atmosphere when dating radiometric Creationist view rays produce neutrons that interact with nitrogen atoms, converting them to c The c naturally decays back into nitrogen with a half-life of years. Animals then eat the at Zhaltyr Stuck in and work horny, by which c is integrated into their body.
So all plants, animals, and people have a small, but measurable quantity of c in their body. That c is slowly but continually decaying into nitrogen.
But, while alive, dating radiometric Creationist view and animals replenish the c by taking in additional carbon from their environment. Therefore, the ratio of c to c in a living animal or plant is roughly the same as it is in the atmosphere.