Can we rely on the radiometric dates alone...no, we can't.
- Free adult web cams with no registration no sign up
- Sex chat desi com
- Telugu sex chating com
- nora kirkpatrick dating
- Sa porn chat
- recessed lighting and updating
I can look in my scientific journals and see apparent discrepancies in dating techniques.
Some may be discrepancies…some may just need a bit further explanation.
After a short argument, the author gives another example, that of lava from the Grand Canyon, giving an error of 270 million years. Geologists say the lava in question is 1.2 million years old..other words, they know when to ignore the radiometric dates. It doesn't mean "all dates are wrong." Remember, context. They claim no source of coal has been found that completely lacks C-14. It is made of carbon...given the amount of carbon in coal, I would expect to see a trace amount of carbon-14 even in samples that are millions of years old.
(Beyond about 60,000 years, the C-14 becomes indistinguishable from the background radiation.) Why was supposed 230 million year old coal dated at 33,720 years? Supposedly, "accompanying checks" showed it was not due to contamination... After all, to say that the lab did not contaminate the specimen proves nothing.
But, the young earth creation scientist also makes unprovable assumptions, when he starts with the assumption that the earth is only 6,000 years old, which is unprovable. Let's move down the article to "Bad Dates." Yes, these are bad dates. It means the geologist has to do the best he can with the tools available to date the objects.
I'm not going to try to defend these bad date examples. The creation science author is correct in calling this the "dating game." Where the young and old earth scientist differs is this..least the old earth scientist is playing the game..are trying to figure out this puzzle, whereas the young-earth scientist starts with the false, unprovable assumption of a 6,000 year old earth, one which flies in the face of the radiometric "dating game," and one that falls flat on its face in light of astronomical dating and stratigraphic evidence.
Since my specialty is geology, I won’t try to argue against items outside of geology... Within geology, one argument used is evidence for the rapid formation of geological strata The rest of the article is interesting, but not critical.
Simply stated, can I be certain about the EXACT old age of the earth? But looking at God's creation, I'm certain that it is a lot older than 6,000 years. In fact, I want to be first in line when I get to heaven, to attend God's version of Geology 101. Whereas the old earther relies on observed scientific principles from God's creation, the young earther relies solely on his assumption of the 24-hour day of creation.
The next section is Other Radiometric Dating Methods.