Answers in genesis radiometric dating Chat italia sexy

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.”[xvii] One evolutionary researcher said “For this complex, laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence.” In other words “you don’t just accept a laboratory date without question. .”[xviii] A lot of radioactive decay does seem to be observed as evidenced by radiohalos and other marks.

answers in genesis radiometric dating-49

There are many assumptions that have to be made when using radiometric dating methods that might make these techniques unreliable.

If any of these assumptions are wrong, then the reliability of the testing method can and should be put in question.

Geologist Dr Steve Austin dated rocks from two lava flows in two different layers in the Grand Canyon and found the lower (older) rocks to be 270 million years younger than the higher (younger) rocks.[x] “A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.” “Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii.

A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon” as being around 1.5 million years old or more.[xi] 11 different rock samples were taken from 3 different eruptions (1949, 1954, 1975) of Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand and “the ‘ages’ of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.”[xii] Also, “the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt.

“The data and our analysis show that over a billion years worth of nuclear decay has occurred very recently, between 40 years ago,”[xx] possibly at the time of the flood.

“A period of accelerated decay would also solve the puzzle of the amount of heat emanating from the Earth—an amount consistent with the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred, but not with a billions of years timescale.”[xxi] “Since 1955 the estimate for the age of the Earth has been based on the assumption that certain meteorite lead isotope ratios are equivalent to the primordial lead isotope ratios on Earth.

The three main assumptions that affect the results of radiometric dating are: 1) the rate of decay has always been constant, 2) there has been no contamination (no movement of elements into or out of the object over time), and 3) we can determine how much daughter element there was to begin with.[ii] There are many test results that make the reliability of these dating techniques very questionable.[iii] Naturalists try to explain these questionable results, but still can’t adequately explain them from their worldview.[iv] Evidence from “as far back as 1971” may show “that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.”[v] Naturalists even admit that radiocarbon dating does not work on living mussels because of the lack of new carbon in that environment.

So what other situations and conditions create unreliable results that we must also throw out the dating because of?

We would expect more volcanic activity due to the effects of the flood, naturalists would not expect or account for that.

There is also a lot of evidence that there is too much C-14 within supposedly old materials.[viii] C-14, which can’t last more than 100,000 years, has been found in coal, in oil, in fossils, in fossil wood, in diamonds, and even in deep strata where it should not exist.[ix] This evidence is above what naturalists can simply claim as contamination.

Creationists do admit that radioactive decay has occurred, but “it is important to understand the simple, fundamental principle behind all dating methods, and why they are not able to produce objective, absolute dates…The fatal flaw is that all scientific measurements are made in the present, whereas a date relates to a time in the past.

Tags: , ,