Radiometric dating is one of the single greatest pieces of evidence that evolutionists have for their theories of millions and millions of years. After all, if these rocks are 65 my (million years) old, then it stands to reason that the earth is that age too, right? Actually, there are some bugs in the program. Radiometric dating is a technique that measures the amount of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope in a substance, and then compares that with the known decay rate of the isotopes in modern substances. This extrapolation can give us a very good idea of how old the rocks are supposed to be.
So what do creationist's, who believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, have to say to this? Well, Answers in Genesis, the leading Christian apologetic group has a well-researched paper on the probability of cataclysms in the past grossly speeding up the decay process, thereby misleading present day scientists. Also, they show that nuclear decay rates do not always remain constant, because even small changes to the environment can have massive repercussions on atoms (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radioisotopes-earth). There are plenty of arguments out there, but the strongest one for the creationist's has got to be the famous dating of the Mt. St. Helen's volcano shortly after it's eruption
When Dr. Steve Austin took samples from recently solidified rocks that had just hardened from lava, he no doubt expected the dates to be under a year at the least. When he and his team analysed it, however, they found that it was dated from between .35 to 2.8 million years ago, which is a huge margin of error!! This is not the first time that this has been documented, though. According to Dr. Keith Swenson (http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm), a former scientist named Dalrymple had taken samples from other recent volcanic explosions, and had found them to be way off target. He wrote some papers on this (Dalrymple, G.B., 1969. 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6:47-55), but was not noticed.
Of course, none of this proves that radiometric dating is wrong, as evolutionists have been quick to point out. They have made valid claims that perhaps Dr. Steve Austin messed up somewhere (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm), or that he used the wrong type of dating for the rocks (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146). The long and short of it, though, is that no one can disprove radiometric dating until conclusive evidence is found after hundreds of trials have been done. So, this theory still is partially valid, and is left for the individual to decide;
So what do creationist's, who believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, have to say to this? Well, Answers in Genesis, the leading Christian apologetic group has a well-researched paper on the probability of cataclysms in the past grossly speeding up the decay process, thereby misleading present day scientists. Also, they show that nuclear decay rates do not always remain constant, because even small changes to the environment can have massive repercussions on atoms (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radioisotopes-earth). There are plenty of arguments out there, but the strongest one for the creationist's has got to be the famous dating of the Mt. St. Helen's volcano shortly after it's eruption
When Dr. Steve Austin took samples from recently solidified rocks that had just hardened from lava, he no doubt expected the dates to be under a year at the least. When he and his team analysed it, however, they found that it was dated from between .35 to 2.8 million years ago, which is a huge margin of error!! This is not the first time that this has been documented, though. According to Dr. Keith Swenson (http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm), a former scientist named Dalrymple had taken samples from other recent volcanic explosions, and had found them to be way off target. He wrote some papers on this (Dalrymple, G.B., 1969. 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6:47-55), but was not noticed.
Of course, none of this proves that radiometric dating is wrong, as evolutionists have been quick to point out. They have made valid claims that perhaps Dr. Steve Austin messed up somewhere (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm), or that he used the wrong type of dating for the rocks (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146). The long and short of it, though, is that no one can disprove radiometric dating until conclusive evidence is found after hundreds of trials have been done. So, this theory still is partially valid, and is left for the individual to decide;
No comments:
Post a Comment