The deal with these dating techniques is they're incredibly complicated and really only people that do them could fully explain how they work.
But they're accepted by absolutely everyone except for a tiny band of young-earth creationidiots.
The Institude for Creation Idiocy does a fairly good job, however, of creating technical-sounding but bogus arguments against them for the benefit of their scientifically uneducated audience.
"The deal with these dating techniques is they're incredibly complicated and really only people that do them could fully explain how they work. "Translation: "Trust us, PLEASE". What's so complicated about it?
- Certain radioactive elements are logically assumed (Assumption 1) to have decayed over time at the same rates that we currently measure radioactive decay.
- If (Assumption 2) the beginning ratios of mother and daughter elements can be assumed, and
- if (assumption 3) we can assume there has not been contamination into or leaching from the sample by either mother or daughter element or if (assumption 4) we can account for contamination/leaching, then it ought to work.
It looks quite simple to me, but it is based on assumptions and if those assumptions aren't sound, then false results occur. Also I understand that discordant dates using different methods are frequently obtained, but there is no way to know how many discordant dates were rejected either by the lab or the researcher and never reported.
But they're accepted by absolutely everyone except for a tiny band of young-earth creationidiots.The Institude for Creation Idiocy does a fairly good job, however, of creating technical-sounding but bogus arguments against them for the benefit of their scientifically uneducated audience.
Congratulations you just used 3 of the top bone-head arguments of evolutionists.
- Argument by name-calling.
- Argument by appeal to authority or intellectual snobbery: "All those scientists can't be wrong."
- Argument by claiming Creationists are money grubbers.
Top Bone-head evolutionist Arguments