Radiometric Dating: Back to Basics (does it really prove the Earth is millions of years old?)

Answers Magazine ^ | June 17, 2009 | Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.

Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact.

Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions. So let’s take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method really is...

[editor-surveyor]

Can it be that you’ve no idea what Romans 1:20 says?

All it is saying is that God is revealed through his creation, and nobody can claim that they were not informed.

As for the rest of your post, do a little thinking along the lines of my previous post to you.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[ShadowAce]

I appreciate you taking the time to enlightenment on the geology being used. I honestly did not know all that.

Although I'm still not clear on why the 4 isotopes are so intricately linked.

[metmom]

And I assume, of course, that you don’t have a smoke detector in your house. Who would trust their well being to the flaky, unpredictable nature of radioactive decay?

If you'd read the article instead of making a knee-jerk anti-creationist reaction, you'd see that they didn't say that the decay rate isn't constant now.

Something changing once at one time in the past due to extenuating circumstances, is not the same as something being variable in nature all the time.

But don't let any kind of reasoning get in the way of your blind hatred of Christians and creationists.

[tpanther]

Why do creation rationalizers rely on the tactics of the left? You are referencing two unrelated topics, one of which is bogus (GW), and claiming that the other is as well solely on the basis of your false equivalence.

You’re a closet leftie, aren’t you?

Awwwww Bucky, we've been over this before.

The Hissy-fit was talking directly about evolution confucius.

It's not liberal to expose liberalism. The tactics of the left, shutting down debate are very much your rationalizations and tactics. And unless you can prove to us that somehow algore is a creationist, then he's all yours. His debate tactics are very much evo-like, probably where he got his playbook for his own cult!

Your position is what it is. Your allies in this are who they are.

And your projecting about it won't change anything sunshine.

[editor-surveyor]

"And of course, the evos aren’t even addressing the point of the assumptions of how much parent material existed to begin with."

They dare not! - Lest that house of cards of their belief system come crashing down.
(same reason that none of them study ancient history; especially Alexander the Great. His comments demolish their contentions WRT Dynos)

[Buck W.]

I see. You apparently follow Chris Matthews and Al Gore much more closely than I do, so I’ll take your word for it.

Further evidence that your a leftie, I’d say.

[metmom]

Unless I have a rock that I know is 1 million years old then how can I accurately date anything to a million years? Without a known standard, anything else is guess work. The more guesses and assumptions you make the more inaccurate the result. Everyone knows what happens when you ASSUME.

And where does one get a rock that one KNOWS is a million years old? How is that determined?

[Buck W.]

your=you’re

[goodusername]

“It is reported that some rock formations contain hundreds of thousands of varves, thereby ‘proving’ the earth is much older than the Bible says.[9] But the assumption that each couplet always takes a year to form is wrong. Recent catastrophes show that violent events like the Flood described in Genesis can deposit banded rock formations very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington State produced eight metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon![10] And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit about a metre (3–4 feet) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field (cross-section shown on the right: normal silica sand grains are separated by darker layers of denser mineral grains like rutile).[11]”

—But... the layers put down by Mt. St. Helens were layers of unsolidated ash created by a pyroclastic flow. It was already known long ago that volcanoes create those geologic patterns very quickly. What on earth does layers of ash from a volcano got to do with varves? That’s akin to saying “they say that apples are smooth, but this orange is rough!”
There are many examples of multiple layers of ash being laid down nearly instantly around the world, such as Cathedral Rock in Oregon which was created 40 million years ago. No one thought that they were annual layers such as varves, or that it took millions of years.

[tpanther]

It happens to the best of us!

[metmom]

Thank God real science is taught in public school.

Right along with global warming and eco- this or that.

Yup, evolution sure has a lot of company.

[Buck W.]

It’s nice to see that the entire creation rationalization braintrust has assembled here.

[metmom]

Spare me the melodrama. Adhering to literal inerrancy is a crutch that some Christians of weak faith require.

On the contrary, having to decide that the Bible isn't true, that it's all just allegory, because it doesn't coincide with current scientific consensus, is the sign of weak faith.

Manipulating Scripture instead of believing that God meant what He said is the easy way out.

[Buck W.]

“Manipulating Scripture instead of believing that God meant what He said is the easy way out. “

Do you buy all of your slaves from the nations near you?

[CharlesWayneCT]

Actually, I think it’s 37% nationwide, 24% of Kerry voters and 45% of Bush voters

Thanks, you are right, and I appreciate you giving me the out of blaming the formatting for my inability to transcribe a simple chart :-)

[count-your-change]

“And of course, the evos aren’t even addressing the point of the assumptions of how much parent material existed to begin with.”

Like the origin of life question, If Darwinism doesn't have an answer they ignore the question. And attack those who have the temerity to bring the subject up at all.

[blowfish]

So it used to be variable, but now it has decided to be constant? Why shouldn’t it start changing tomorrow (since apparently it can switch back and forth). And what “extenuating circumstance” produced this hypothesised (and
And, my dear, I don’t hate creationists or Christians. I just think the attempts of some of them to use the bible as a science text are silly.

[tpanther]

“And asking doesn’t garner explanation but name calling for asking.”

Liberals project-alot.

I asked him about hissy-fit matthews and his settled science comments when he was spewing spittle about evolution, and the reply from Bucky was this has nothing to do with the subject of evolution and that I’m a closet liberal for using leftist tactics!

I guess you just have to remember that this is from someone that actually argues that believing what God says in the Bible makes a Christian weak in his faith.

Buck W. = the walking talking poster-boy for failed liberal public indoctrination masquerading as education. Perhaps he’s in a contest to have his pic. captioned next to the NEA in Webster’s?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Would they all have wonky results in precisely the same way?

My favorite aspect of this line of creationist argument is that not only do all the dating methods have to be wrong, but they each have to be wrong in their own, precisely necessary way. The fact that the dating methods tend to confirm each other (even when they're based on completely unrelated methods) doesn't mean they're accurate, see--it means that for the radiometric dates, the decay rate changed by just the right amount some time in the past; and the varves have to be deposited misleadingly in just the right way; and the trees have to grow exactly as necessary to produce the measured number of rings; and, and, and...