Science vs. Fiction

Flaws in Dating? Roland Watts. Matt’s style is to post a link from a creationist web site, usually Answers in Genesis, which contains the usual bunkum that has been refuted many times then to refuse to acknowledge any rebuttals. Below is a critical look at one of Matt’s typical posts. In this one Matt airs the old creationist claim that the dating system is flawed. On March 10 you posted a link under the heading “Flaws in Dating“. The link ended at an AiG site with an article, Flaws in dating the earth as ancient by Mr. Alexander Williams, B. Hons , Th. His credentials are impressive and his interests appear to be in science, statistics and creation issues.

Institute for Creation Research

By Kirk Reynolds. The global flood as described in the Bible has been attacked by Christians as well as non-Christians. Those Christians who do not hold to a literal reading of Genesis are willing to believe in the old age of the earth as proposed by evolution. This belief states that the universe came into existence approximately 12 billion years ago through the Big Bang. There are several theories of creation based on this evolutionary timeline, such as Progressive Creation, Gap Theory, Framework Hypothesis, and Theistic Evolution.

Strangely, Dr Snelling has never attempted to answer, or refute my allegations. data, but solely on a belief in the literal interpretation and inerrancy of the Genesis range of standard error in radiometric dating methods applied to such rocks.

Others had tried. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of evidence the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track dating and more that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place. It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.

Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay process was wrong Wieland It marks a move away from reliance on ‘appearance of age’ and the arguments of creationists like John Woodmoreappe Plaisted , who asserted that radioisotope dates are the result of filtering essentially random numbers through the institutional biases of science.

These young-Earth creationists now argue that radioisotope decay has actually occurred, can be measured accurately, and that it would require billions of years at present rates to account for the current condition of the Earth. The scientific community has been making those very arguments for decades.

Age of the Earth

As determined by the most recent geological and physical measurements, the Earth is 4. Here are some references that explain the independent scientific methods used to measure this age. Patterson, G.

NASA’s Genesis spacecraft spent more than two years collecting samples of the solar wind. Launch Date and Time, Aug. They published results detailing, for example, the identification of argon and neon isotopes in samples of three Dawn spacecraft data answers two big questions: Is there liquid.

Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers. To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava properly called magma before it erupts fills large underground chambers called magma chambers.

Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on daughter to parent ratios. Such processes can cause the daughter product to be enriched relative to the parent, which would make the rock look older, or cause the parent to be enriched relative to the daughter, which would make the rock look younger.

This calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into serious question.

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?

Your browser or your browser’s settings are not supported. To get the best experience possible, please download a compatible browser. If you know your browser is up to date, you should check to ensure that javascript is enabled. Data revealed differences between the sun and planets in oxygen and nitrogen, which are two of the most abundant elements in our solar system. Although the difference is slight, the implications could help determine how our solar system evolved.

The air on Earth contains three different kinds of oxygen atoms which are differentiated by the number of neutrons they contain.

Are radiometric methods of dating rocks and fossils reliable? What evidences support a young age for the earth? Where did the idea of “millions of years” come​.

We are a c 3 non-profit company tax-exempt status approved , so your contributions to our ministry are welcome! Equipping youth pastors, parents, and students with Biblical answers for evolutionary teaching in public schools. Carbon dating assigns ages to once-living materials such as wood, bone, teeth, and shells. Evolutionary researchers do not use it to age-date rocks. It begins by measuring the ratio of radioactive versus stable versions of an element. Carbon dating works by basing an age calculation on the ratio of radioactive carbon 14 C to normal carbon 12 C in the atmosphere before nuclear bomb testing to the same ratio in the sample.

Carbon decays to nitrogen. Given the relatively short 14 C half-life of 5, years, organic materials purportedly older than , years nearly 18 half-lives should contain absolutely no detectable 14 C. However, coal, diamonds, and even dinosaur bones contain amounts of 14 C at levels detectable by modern instruments. Carbon dating begins with sound, repeatable science when researchers record isotope ratios.

While carbon dating can in fact return somewhat accurate ages for items that are a couple thousand years old see discussion and endnotes below , too many evolutionary assumptions accompany carbon dates for items into the deeper past. Several unknown factors can seriously impact carbon ratios. Just a partial list of these factors includes:.

Answers in Genesis’ Deceptive Video on Radiometric Dating

Many get fed up with Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis continually misrepresented normal science. This is a good summary of why his recent porkies are pure Ham. Isochron dating bypasses the necessity of knowing the quantity of initial daughter product in the rock by not using that value in the computation. Instead of using the initial quantity of daughter isotope, the ratio of daughter isotope compared to another isotope of the same element which is not the product of any decay process is used as the comparison for isochron dating.

alleged unreliable radiometric age dating methods, largely come from were alleged in the RATE project organized by Answers in. Genesis.

Flood geology: a house built on sand Dr Alex Ritchie. Dr Alex Ritchie received his B. Hons in Geology and a Ph. D at the University of Edinburgh. He worked as a palaeontologist at the Australian Museum from to where he is currently a Research Fellow. As might be expected by any reader familiar with CEN, the questions posed were classic Dorothy Dixers and less than intellectually taxing, for example: “What are some of the important contributions to geology that creationists are making?

What evidence are they ignoring? The article doesn’t say who conducted the “interview”, leaving open the possibility that Andrew Snelling interviewed himself, posing the questions as well as providing the answers. The interview might have been more informative if another geologist had set the questions but, as we all know, Dr Snelling is extremely reluctant to expose himself to public questioning by his scientific peers.

Who is Dr Andrew Snelling B.

Radiometric Dating Answers In Genesis

The chronological figures related to genealogies in Scripture add up to approximately 6, years since the creation of described in Genesis. Many creationists consider these figures to be relatively complete, and thus the Earth is considered to be about 6, to perhaps as much as 10, years old. Biblical scholars do not agree on whether the Bible indicates that the planet Earth was created at the beginning of creation week or if it was already present as a lifeless, wet and dark planet here prior to creation week.

The Bible does not give an age for the Earth, nor is any theological point drawn from the age of the Earth, so it may not be as important as some of the other issues.

Researchers analyzing samples returned by NASA’s Genesis If you know your browser is up to date, you should check to ensure that javascript is enabled. also tiny amounts of more exotic oxygen isotopes called O and O “​While it was more challenging than expected, we have answered.

Most people envision radiometric dating by analogy to sand grains in an hourglass: the grains fall at a known rate, so that the ratio of grains between top and bottom is always proportional to the time elapsed. In principle, the potassium-argon K-Ar decay system is no different. Of the naturally occurring isotopes of potassium, 40K is radioactive and decays into 40Ar at a precisely known rate, so that the ratio of 40K to 40Ar in minerals is always proportional to the time elapsed since the mineral formed [ Note: 40K is a potassium atom with an atomic mass of 40 units; 40Ar is an argon atom with an atomic mass of 40 units].

In theory, therefore, we can estimate the age of the mineral simply by measuring the relative abundances of each isotope. Over the past 60 years, potassium-argon dating has been extremely successful, particularly in dating the ocean floor and volcanic eruptions. K-Ar ages increase away from spreading ridges, just as we might expect, and recent volcanic eruptions yield very young dates, while older volcanic rocks yield very old dates.

Though we know that K-Ar dating works and is generally quite accurate, however, the method does have several limitations. First of all, the dating technique assumes that upon cooling, potassium-bearing minerals contain a very tiny amount of argon an amount equal to that in the atmosphere. While this assumption holds true in the vast majority of cases, excess argon can occasionally be trapped in the mineral when it crystallizes, causing the K-Ar model age to be a few hundred thousand to a few million years older than the actual cooling age.

Secondly , K-Ar dating assumes that very little or no argon or potassium was lost from the mineral since it formed. But given that argon is a noble gas i. Finally —and perhaps most importantly—the K-Ar dating method assumes that we can accurately measure the ratio between 40K and 40Ar.

Radiometric Dating is Flawed!! Really?? How Old IS the Earth?