Posted on 06/18/2009 8:48:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact.
Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions. So let’s take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method really is...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Here's a rebuttal Snelling wrote on TrueOrigin.org.
Others may be interested in the articles on the site.
“Most of the greatest achievements of science took place before what we call today peer review.”
Achievements, not publications.
Today, we subject scientific articles to peer review. Unreviewed articles are nothing more than musings designed to deceive.
Not if it's underwater...
There´s no link to support the assertion you make about ice cores and varves. I presume that´s an oversight, right?
“Do you mean like Global Warming and Piltdown Man?”
And creation “science”, yes. Apparently, you agree with the need for peer review.
Since we now use a radiometric time standard universally, should the rate change we would have no way of recording or proving such.
Read later
Oddly, they make them practice doing exaclty that.
Yes, unless the scientists who built it are young earth creationists. Only then will he be fine.
Hey! Don't confuse the issue by posting the facts!
We gotta paradigm to maintain...
Is counting all the begats in Genesis more accurate that radioactive decay dating????
In that method you are really making some BIG assumptions.....
How do new earthers explain the “pock” marks left in the crust by Yellowstone eruptions and the fact they are consistent with the timing of plate movements? (approx 600,000 years apart). Geological events occur over millions of years, not overnight.
.
OK, assume "Assumption 2" is correct. Decay is, and has been, constant. There is no way one can assume the "daughter atoms" were all produced by decay.
Since you can't assume they were all produced by decay, you cannot measure the original amount of the "parent atoms".
You do realise that those are not contradictory. And that, in fact, science is supposed to be about verification, not assumption, and that whenever something has not been verified, it cannot be assumed.
If someone were to take either of those arguments and say they proved the negative, your complaint would have merit.
But any claim of scientific fact can be dismissed if it can be shown there is no verification of the assumptions.
The problem with applying scientific evolution to the mythology of origins is that we cannot observe initial conditions, and we cannot observe or repeat the past.
We can guess what happened in the past, and pretend that Occam’s razor is actually a scientific principle rather than a handy way of guessing at what happened, but we’ll never be able to say with certainty that a particular belief of the process of origins is the correct one.
After all, an all-powerful God could have created the universe 6000 years ago in precisely the state it would have to be in if it had evolved over billions of years. Sure, from a scientific perspective that would be “uninteresting”, but there’s no way to prove it didn’t happen.
Looks like you’re getting flamed already. You have to realize that although this is a conservative, pro-military, pro-God website, most people on these boards do not agree with a true literal interpretation of the Bible, especially when it comes to this type of subject.
“If you object to Answers Magazine on this basis, then you must object to all popular science magazines.”
Scientific American and New Scientist are not intended to be peer reviewed journals. Their authors, though, generally have a solid history of peer review elsewhere. However, you are touting this series as a breakthrough, so the fact that it appears in a non peer reviewed publication must cause you some concern.
Now, back to the question: can you post the bibliography that the author cites, and can you post references to his other peer-reviewed works? (I’ll reserve comment on your statement “Creation science journals are all peer reviewed” until later so as to not clutter this post).
==Geological events occur over millions of years, not overnight.
Granite formation: catastrophic in its suddenness
http://creation.com/granite-formation-catastrophic-in-its-suddenness
One valid question you and I both know would never get answered...
However, I did hear once from a “devout creationist” that Adam and Eve were driven from Eden **to earth**
(I hope it was a nice car)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.