Rita Sweeney, 31 years old
Creationists have long pointed out a major problem with trusting radiometric dating methods: that they are often wrong on dates of known age, so why should we trust them on rocks of unknown age? When biblioskeptics are confronted with this severe evidence, sometimes they try to get out of it by claiming that the dating methods were illegitimate for the age of the sample. One example from is radiometric dating wrong USA follows. Dr Jonathan Sarfati explains the logical fallacy of such a criticism. I recently read a book by Dr Jonathan Sarfati.
Lisle Oct 27, GeologyOriginsPhysics. We are told that scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to measure the age of rocks. We are also told that this method very reliably and consistently yields ages of millions to billions of years, thereby establishing beyond question that the earth is immensely old — a concept known as deep time. This apparently contradicts the biblical record in which we read that Is radiometric dating wrong created in six days, with Adam being made on the sixth day. From the listed genealogies, the creation of the universe happened about years ago. Has science therefore disproved the Bible? Is radiometric dating a reliable method for estimating the age of something?
Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers. To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava properly called magma before it erupts fills large underground chambers called magma chambers.
Is radiometric dating wrong
More about is radiometric dating wrong:
Radiometric dating is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. Creationists also often misunderstand it, claiming that the process is inaccurate. Perhaps a good place to start this article would be to affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. It is certainly incorrect, and it is certainly based on wrong assumptions, but it is not inaccurate. What do I mean? How can something be accurate and yet wrong? Is radiometric dating wrong understand this point, we need to understand what exactly is being measured during a radiometric dating test. One thing that is not being directly measured is the actual age of the sample. It needs to be remembered that observational science can only measure things in the here-and-now, in a manner which can be repeated.
When a new fossil is discovered, geologists assign a date for when they think the plant or animal lived. They normally use radiometric dating methods to date the fossil, and many promote these methods as being accurate. Yet when you look into the technical papers on these discoveries, you find that these dates are often questionable and are sometimes clearly in error. Several types of radiometric dating methods are is radiometric dating wrong today. One of the best known is carbon 14 C When a plant or animal dies, the carbon in it has a small amount of radioactivity.
Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life. Some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating does not work on theoretical grounds for example, Arndts and Overn ; Gill but such attempts invariably have fatal flaws see Dalrymple ; York and Dalrymple Other creationists have focused on instances in which radiometric dating seems to yield incorrect results. In most instances, these efforts are flawed because the authors have misunderstood or misrepresented the data they attempt to analyze for example, Woodmorappe ; Morris HM ; Morris JD Only rarely does a creationist actually find an incorrect radiometric result Austin ; Rugg and Austin that has not already been revealed and discussed in the scientific literature. The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons. First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young.