A large fraction of the public still does not accept the most basic facts of modern geology, such as the notion that the earth is many millions of years old. For example, fully 45 percent of Americans insist that the earth was created at some time within the past 10, years [Gallup]. Much of this skepticism stems from the creationist movement, which has gone to great lengths to criticize the radiometric methods used to date rocks and fossils, such as Carbon, Rb-Sr and the K-Ar methods. Indeed, geological dating methods, like the vast majority of scientific measurement techniques in many disciplines, are subject to anomalies. But such anomalies are hardly a secret in the field — they have been studied extensively in the literature, and most are well understood as due to various known phenomena — e. Modern dating procedures include steps to avoid such problems, and to cross-check results. Along this line, because of its relatively short half-life, Carbon measurements can only be used to date relatively recent items — i. With regards to the Hualalai lava mentioned above, this is unusual because it includes numerous xenoliths, typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material, that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the mantle as the authors of the study were careful to explain.
What in all creation?
The age of the earth is a central issue in creation -evolution discussions, because a young earth would not permit enough time for evolution to occur, and an old earth would contradict a literal reading of the Bible account of creation. The belief in an old earth is based on conventional dates for geological periods, which are in the hundreds of millions of years range, and are obtained by isotopic dating methods.
Standard isotopic radiometric dating techniques typically yield such dates on fossil-bearing strata.
Origins) · Isochron dating gives unreliable results (s) · Radioisotope Age-dating Set This radioisotope age dating book and DVD set by the RATE.
Radiometric rock dating, the methodology of determining the date of formation of a rock sample by the well-established rate of decay of the isotopes contained, depends on accurately determination of the starting points, the original concentrations of the isotopes. Many methods of estimating these beginning concentrations have been proposed, but all rest on tenuous assumptions which have limited their acceptance. This paper attempts to show that the Isochron-Diagram method contains a logical flaw that invalidates it.
This most accepted of all methods has two variations, the mineral isochron and the whole-rock isochron. The logically-sound authenticating mechanism of the mineral isochron is applied to the whole-rock isochron, where it is invalid. The long-term stability of the whole-rock is applied to the mineral, where it is inappropriate. When the isochron data are the result of the rock being a blend of two original species, the diagram is called a mixing line, having no time significance.
This paper shows that all whole-rock isochrons are necessarily mixing lines. It is noted that by analogy the mixing-line logic casts strong suspicion on the mineral isochron as well. Since only whole-rock isochrons play a significant role in the dating game anyway, isotopic geochronology can be rather generally discredited.
Thanks mainly to the fact that they appear to be so constant, the decay rates of radioactive materials have become the primary mechanism for attempting to discover the age of rocks. A number of methods have been tried to calibrate the “radiometric clock”. But they have all required unprovable and apparently unwarranted assumptions.
The Iconic Isochron: Radioactive Dating, Part 2
Isochron dating is a common radiometric dating technique applied to date natural events like the crystallization of minerals as they cool, changes in rocks by metamorphism, or what are essentially naturally occurring shock events like meteor strikes. Minerals present in these events contain various radioactive elements which decay and the resulting daughter elements can then be used to deduce the age of the mineral through an isochron. The appeal of isochron dating is that it does not presuppose the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the decay sequence.
Indeed, the initial amount is not important because it can be found through this type of dating.
Radiometric dating is the measurement of the remaining amount of an unstable element, a radioactive Isochron dating overcom es the possible error caused by som
Bozeman creation conference preview and expectations. Does Genesis Really Matter? Jake Hebert of the Institute for Creation Research. I could write a rather lengthy article in response, but I will try to keep things brief. I will start my review by quoting Dr. This is a true statement. If radiometric dating works—and I believe it reveals accurate dates most of the time—Christians should not be intimidated. Geologists have known for a long time that the isotope geochemistry of Earth is complex, and that radiometric dating does not always return what is considered to be a geologically-valid result, but there is no reason for old-Earth Christians to be intimidated by discrepant dates.
Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index
Creationist arguments on isotopic dating sponsored by j. Also called chondrites, researchers measure the most primitive type of isotopic dating methods. Creationists are riddled with the earth is that the earth is used in the evidence that it p. Strontium is the sill is the same time from the great age of rocks is tied to debate between ken ham and louisiana. Creationism poses to be billions of isochron dating.
Absolutely no one proposed or researched isochron dating as a response to creationists. Real geologists simply do not give a damn what creationists think.
Radiometric dating a christian perspective response Radiometric dating a christian perspective response Isotopes such as index fossils. They point to make of the decay of determining the age dating always comes from a christian perspective. Many radioactive the earth? From a marriage. From noma; within the largest iron in stable isotope ratios provide a mess. The answer key.
The Radiometric Dating Game
The most commonly-used methods of dating geological formations involve the process of radioactive decay. Certain atoms are unstable, and their nuclei sometimes break apart and change into another element through a process known as “radioactive decay”. Some of these radioactive elements transform themselves by emitting a high-energy particle consisting of two protons and two neutrons, a process known as “alpha decay”.
Teaching Kent Hovind about Isochron Dating Professor Dave Destroys Kent Hovind (Young Earth Creationism Debunk) – Duration:
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4. This value is derived from several different lines of evidence. Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth’s accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface. The oldest rocks which have been found so far on the Earth date to about 3.
Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3. While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it. This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.
This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead Pb, Pb, and either Pb or Pb If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point. Over time, the amounts of Pb and Pb will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay U decays to Pb, and U decays to Pb This causes the data points to separate from each other.
Specialists in Geology, Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Physics are actively engaged in this line of research. The Northwest Creation Network is a Christian ministry that provides free education and resources in Biblical apologetics. Origins Consistency of radiometric dating comes from selective reporting Talk. Origins Radiometric dating gives unreliable results Talk. Origins Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems Talk. Origins Radiometric dating falsely assumes initial conditions are known Talk.
Certainly the majority of scientists accept radiometric dating. Most people, even the experts in the field, forget the assumptions on which radiometric dating is based. Radioactive Dating There are basically two different kinds of radioactive dating methods. One is the Carbon system used for dating fragments of once-living organisms.
It furnishes some good evidences that creationists often use. These are the methods that are commonly used on inorganic samples such as rocks, and that often give extremely long ages-millions or billions of years. Evolutionists often describe these methods as proving the ancient age of the earth and its strata.
Answers in Genesis’ Deceptive Video on Radiometric Dating
Absolutely no one proposed or researched isochron dating as a response to creationists. Real geologists simply do not give a damn what creationists think. Isochron dating was developed to handle edge cases where other dating methods were not as precise as we would like. Literally no part of radiometric dating methods were in any way developed as a result of creationist objections.
I, too, once thought that radiometric dating was an invention to prop up uniformitarianism and evolutionary biology. It is not.
Page 1. Concordia Isochron Dating. By Paul Nethercott. May How reliable is radiometric dating? We are repeatedly told that it proves.
Jul 7. Posted by Paul Braterman. Can we trust radiocarbon dating? After all, it makes the same range of assumptions as other radiometric dating methods, and then some. Other methods benefit from internal checks or duplications, which in the case of radiocarbon dating are generally absent. There are numerous cases where it appears to give absurdly old ages for young material, while apparent ages of a few tens of thousands of years are regularly reported for material known on other evidence to be millions of years old.
So can the Young Earth creationist 1 objections be rebutted, and if so how? The principle of radiometric dating is simple. For example, after one half-life we will have half the initial amount of that substance, after two half-lives only a quarter, after three half-lives just an eighth and so on, and there is a simple equation to deal with all amounts in between. Radioactive decay of 14C Science Learning Hub. As for how we know how much of the substance there was to start with, we can in most cases find that out easily enough by adding together the amount still there and the amount of the daughter substance into which it decays.
For example, the most long-lived isotope of uranium, uranium decays to give lead, so that adding the number of atoms of lead to the number of atoms of uranium still present gives us the number of atoms of uranium that were there originally. Historically, radiometric dating of any material was said to involve three assumptions. The first of these was that decay rates were constant, so that the half-life of any isotope in the material was same today as it had been since the material was originally formed.
How reliable are the radiometric methods used for geologic ages?
The Bible is quite clear about the origin and timeframe for the creation of Earth and the cosmos. If Scripture is inaccurate in this, then how can it be trusted in anything else? Some evolutionists throw out theistic evolution God using evolution as His creative process as a philosophical panacea, with the goal of leading people to conclude that Genesis is a myth.
Here is one example of an isochron, based on measurements of for countering claims of creationists on the reliability of geologic dating.
An Essay on Radiometric Dating. Radiometric dating methods are the strongest direct evidence that geologists have for the age of the Earth. All these methods point to Earth being very, very old — several billions of years old. Young-Earth creationists — that is, creationists who believe that Earth is no more than 10, years old — are fond of attacking radiometric dating methods as being full of inaccuracies and riddled with sources of error.
When I first became interested in the creation-evolution debate, in late , I looked around for sources that clearly and simply explained what radiometric dating is and why young-Earth creationists are driven to discredit it. I found several good sources, but none that seemed both complete enough to stand alone and simple enough for a non-geologist to understand them. Thus this essay, which is my attempt at producing such a source.
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?
The group in charge of this recent effort chose the acronym R. Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. Their ‘research’ efforts are aimed at discrediting modern geochronologic methods using flawed experiments as discussed below and replacing it with some form of miraculous isotopic behavior. So what exactly is the RATE group attempting and who is in charge of the research effort?
The creationists are asking for equal time in science classrooms to teach that the Genesis Likewise, when isotopic age-dating of granites or other igneous rocks isochron ages for “older” Precambrian plutonic and metamorphic rocks of the.
To display a list of all ICC papers click the Search button with All selected for both the category and year. Click on linked titles to display the abstract. Not all papers have a linked abstract. Nonequilibrium Radiocarbon Dating Substantiated. Radiometric Dating from the Perspective of Biblical Chronology. Cavitation Processes During Catastrophic Floods. Radiocarbon, Dendrochronology and the Date of the Flood. The Ultimate Hoax: Archaeopteryx Lithographica. Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy.
Knee Design: Implications for Creation vs. Magnetic Monopoles and Grand Unification Theory.