The Mythology reality deserves some measure of consideration.
It challenges frontally the conformity models..[accretion formation]...the reader is left to consider if everything has been plodding allong slowly over Billions of years..or if time measure values are off significantly..especially do too Isotope decay rates..which could be very wrong in projection evaluation.
****************************************************
an excerpt from a post on another website by me.
plinking ablout on the net has turned up some info new to me...something of interest..and a valid point maker..that the previous dating models for our Earth and the Solar System may be way off.
the culprits know it...just hope we do not clammour relentlssly so that they have to amend their date claims. an excerpt from a chat site on Radio dating.
Past, present and future together Consider then. Radiometric dating methods (those measuring geologic time by rate of radioactive decay) have been used to date formations that could be associated with Noahs Flood. These dates supposedly prove these formations are millions of years old rather than thousands. Yet we find that different methods can yield radically different results. As The Science of Evolution explains: Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earths history . . . It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years).
There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ˜clock (William Stansfield, 1977, pp. 80, 84).
The potassium-argon [K-Ar] dating method, used to date lava flows, also has problems”as shown by studies of Mount St. Helens. The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar ˜age™ of 0.35 OR - 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from this same dacite give K-Ar ˜ages™ from 0.35 OR - .06 Ma to 2.8 OR - 0.6 Ma. These ˜ages™ are, of course, preposterous [since we know the rock formed recently]. The fundamental dating assumption (˜no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed™) is questioned by these data. Instead, data from this Mount St. Helens dacite argue that significant ‘excess argon™ was present when the lava solidified in 1986 . . . This study of Mount St. Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked”how accurate are K-Ar ˜ages™ from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide? (Stephen Austin, Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1996, pp. 335-344). In laymans terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986”less than 20 years ago”were scientifically dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old! Such examples serve to illustrate the fallibility of the dating methods on which many modern scientists rely so heavily.
*************************************************************
A reply to my post:
On the accuracy of radiodating, I clean forgot to mention about the Mount St Helens eruption.
Thanks for picking that up.
Proves how unreliable such dating methods can be.
It is erroneous dating assumptions such as these that form the basis of most Earth sciences.
Having fixed the date of the earliest rocks at around 4.5 billion years (uranium/lead) and obviously just before that, the formation of the Earth, then the principles of astronomy must equally follow suit and rely on vast amounts of time.
With uranium/lead dating, how do they know for sure how much uranium existed in the original rock sample to begin with and also know its isotopic content.
With extreme electrification or exposure to radiation, these conditions can change abruptly, giving entirely different readings.
Same with carbon-14 dating.
Cosmic rays striking the upper atmospheric produce fast moving neutrons, which combine with nitrogen atoms to produce carbon -14 isotopes.
This in combination with oxygen produces carbon dioxide which is absorbed by vegetation.
Many animals eat vegetation and when they die, the carbon-14 decays.
Basically, the theory assumes that carbon-14 is in equilibrium with the atmosphere and is broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced.
Therefore the influx of cosmic rays has remained constant too.
But how do they know this for sure.?
A stronger magnetic field strength in the past can deflect these cosmic rays, giving a much lower carbon-14 content.
Are we to say then that fossils with a much reduced carbon-14 content are of a great age (dinosaurs etc), measured in millions of years?