I think DM mainly has a problem with 6 literal days because he’s so sure of the science of radio-isotope dating methods. But now tell me is it creation science or evolution science that is too close-minded when considering radio-isotope dating:
a.) what is the beginning ratio of father / daughter elements?
b.) what conditions might account for increasing the decay rates?
Both are assumed by evolutionary thinking but has mankind not seen discrepancies aplenty? IIRC Mt. St. Helens showed some rather large radio-isotope dates immediately thereafter. Has science been able to duplicate the conditions of heat and pressure associated w/ volcanic eruptions?
a.) what is the beginning ratio of father / daughter elements?
b.) what conditions might account for increasing the decay rates?
Both are assumed by evolutionary thinking but has mankind not seen discrepancies aplenty? IIRC Mt. St. Helens showed some rather large radio-isotope dates immediately thereafter. Has science been able to duplicate the conditions of heat and pressure associated w/ volcanic eruptions?
This is exactly why creation science is so superior to idiot evolutionist "science". Evo science has no way of testing these assumptions, like the original ratio of decay elements, changes in the speed of light, etc. and when the radio-isotope tests are applied, 100% properly and as they were intended, to brand new formations (like at St. Helens), they give ages showing they're millions of years old.
What a crock. If the evo had any shame, they'd declare radiometry, and all the physics and geology that depends on it, as a total sham and consult with creation scientists at ICR, AiG, etc. who (obviously) have a much better handle on the science behind dating methods. But the evo has no shame, and doing so conflicts with their mission of poisoning the minds of young people against the Savior in so-called "science" classes.
Thanks for your kind post, my brother in Christ.
First, the accuracy of radioisotope measurements is very high. Here's a mildly technical explanation, written by Christians, on the accuracy of radioisotope dating. Here are some quotes from another article, directed toward Christians who have been told that we cannot trust radioisotope dating.
- There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
- All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
- Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
- Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
- The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.
As a conservative, Bible-believing Christian who is also a scientist, I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of radioisotope dating. I also see no conflict with the Bible.
Have scientists occasionally wrongly calculated the date of a rock? Of course, there is always the opportunity for mismeasurement. Some automobiles have a faulty speedometer, but that is no reason to say that the whole science behind speedometers is wrong.
You mentioned increasing (I assume you mean decreasing) decay rates. First, there is no evidence for that. Second, you have to ask the common-sense question of what happens to an atom if it's decay right is increased by several orders of magnitude? It gives off a lot of heat.
If the decay rates of radioactive elements were orders of magnitude greater 6,000 years ago, the earth would have vaporized.