skip to content »

Radiometric dating according to creationists

radiometric dating according to creationists-56

Yet this is precisely the situation we have with radiometric dating.Radiometric dating regularly gives different ages for the same object based on the method used.

radiometric dating according to creationists-2radiometric dating according to creationists-10radiometric dating according to creationists-9

Christians can be divided into two groups when it comes to this.From the data above, obviously that is not the case.And the differences can be quite dramatic: Basalt – a type of volcanic rock – dated by K-Ar to 45 million years old, while unfossilized wood entombed in the basalt is dated to 45 thousand years old by Carbon14 dating.[3] Or the indisputable example of rock formed during the Mt Saint Helens eruption in 1980.For example check the variance in ages from samples tested by two different methods.[2] Variances were seen regardless of location: The expectation is that rocks located at the same site would date to the same age regardless of the method used.For instance I would could consider the physics of flight a “hard science.” Here’s how those terms apply to the performance of an aircraft: Measurable: Flight parameters such as take off and landing distance, fuel burn, etc. Repeatable: Given the same initial conditions, those parameters should be the same regardless of who performs the operations.

Predictable: Since they’re repeatable, they’re also predictable.

The Radiometric Dating Method Once again let me point out that scientists regularly reject data from radiometric “dating” results.

One expert admitted: Or consider the statement of an evolutionist who didn’t agree with the radiometric dating (using five different radiometric techniques) of Australia’s “Mungo Man”, thinking it placed humans in Australia too early.

He stated: So here’s another evolutionist who refused to accept the results given from radiometric dating.

Why is there so little confidence in the outcome of radiometric dating that scientist admit that they regularly reject data provided by that means?

Consider: In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (Potassium-Argon) age it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.