Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Palaentology » radioactive dating

radioactive dating

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 radioactive dating on Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:01 pm

Admin


Admin
radioactive dating

http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-fatal-flaw

The educational page hosted by the US Geological Society provides one recent example of the way radioactive dating is explained to the public. They focus on the technicalities of radioactive decay, etc. but don’t even mention the fact that we can’t measure the concentrations of isotopes in the past.

So, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologists do—they make up an assumed geological history for rock after the event, depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab that measures the isotopes in the rocks now. Dating secrets explains how this works in practice. Some real-life examples of how geologists change their assumptions after the event include the dating of Skull KNM-ER 1470 (see The pigs took it all) and of the Mungo skeletal remains, Australia (see The dating game).

Next time you see dates quoted of millions of years remember that the numbers are not scientific measurements of time elapsed. They are the result of big philosophical assumptions.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

2 Re: radioactive dating on Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:52 pm

Admin


Admin
http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Pontcharra.htm

Despite very impressive and powerful measurement and characterization tools, physical and chemical analysis methods, the dating of rocks by using radioactive elements depends on very basic assumptions. The significance and relevance of these assumptions have not been demonstrated. In fact, the first radiochronology assumptions were adapted to fit the stratigraphic scale used by geochronologists of the end of the 19th century.

In the particular case of K/Ar method, the presence of excess Ar and the impossibility of correcting the bias introduced, put into question the entire “model ages” results obtained during the last decades in dating fossils.

These considerations on radiodating limitations are important at the present time when alternative theories are being proposed by G. Berthault to reconstruct the stratigraphic scale in the light of experimental research[10],[11]. A correlation between the two approaches will be an interesting project for researchers in the next decade.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

3 Re: radioactive dating on Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:06 pm

Admin


Admin
http://donboys.cstnews.com/radiometric-dating-of-fossils-not-reasonable-reliable-or-right

It is a fact, supported by overwhelming evidence, that inaccurate radiometric dating is the rule rather than the exception when determining the age of fossils. Modern scientific dating is about as reasonable, reliable, and right as MSNBC commentators! Radiometric dating is always dependent on uniformitarian geologic interpretations–always. The age of the various strata, determined many years ago, are always used to “help” date a fossil. They use circular reasoning when they use rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks! When we accuse evolutionists of using a tautology, they smile nervously and walk away.

Any “scientifically” deduced date will be discarded if the date does not conform to the pre-determined age of the strata where the fossil was discovered. The dating firm will often ask, “What date will be acceptable?” Real science, huh?

Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods whether used by evolutionists or creationists. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young Earth, rely on many assumptions.

We are told (over and over) that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old yet rocks have been dated to an excess of 10 billion years! I think we can all agree that earth’s rocks can’t be older than the Earth itself! Why are these modern dating methods still being used after they have been discredited? My guess is that it impresses the gullible and those who want to believe.

We know that the moon is slowly receding from the Earth at about 1.5 inches per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. However, if the moon had been in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the Earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. The “clock” is not working.

Scientists used both uranium-thorium-lead and potassium-argon methods to date Apollo moon samples and they got results which varied from 2 million to 28 billion years! That is some difference!

Lava flows produced submerged volcanic rocks near Hualalai, Hawaii in the years 1800-1801 and potassium-argon dated them from 160 million to 2.96 billion years according to the Journal of Geophysical Research. Seems as if the “clock” is a little off! It seems the “experts” are deducing instead of dating. Deducing means to “infer” or to “assume.” I like “guessing.”

Scientists used potassium-argon dating to date a rock sample from the recently formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens and the newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years. Not even in the ball park but fanatics continue to play the game!

Another absurdity is obvious when wood taken from living trees was dated to be 10,000 years old by carbon-14! And mortar from an English castle about 800 years old was dated 7,370 years! But can you believe it gets worse?

Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava on Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand that are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The samples were sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts to ascertain their approximate age. They got dates ranging from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old! Maybe scientists throw darts to arrive at dates?

Some Russian volcanic rocks only a few thousand years old were labeled as being from 50 million to 14.6 billion years old! This is getting to be embarrassing!

The shells of living mollusks have been dated at up to 2,300 years old according to Science magazine.

Wayne Jackson wrote, “Freshly-killed seals have been dated at up to 1,300 years, and mummified seals, dead only about thirty years, have yielded dates as high as 4,600 years. In our book, Creation, Evolution and the Age of the Earth, we documented one case where muscle tissue from a mummified musk ox was dated at 24,000 years, while hair from the same carcass dated only 7,200 years!” Hummm, that’s interesting!

Dr. Thomas Barnes, professor emeritus of physics at the University of Texas, has done extensive research in the decay of the Earth’s magnetic field. His findings indicate that the magnetic field was created only a few thousand years ago, and is decaying toward extinction!

A major problem in radiometric dating is the assumption of a closed system. A closed system demands that uranium or potassium was in the rocks for “millions” of years without any kind of contamination. However, that requires a massive leap of faith without any foundation in science. There can be no doubt that, over the years, leaching, evaporation, etc., took place that throws off the “clock.”

The thing that surprises me when an evolutionist spouts his drivel about how they can “prove” the great age of the Earth is that informed people don’t fall to the floor, gasping and holding their sides with raucous laughter! And the most reserved critics will only express a grin and a muffled giggle.

The biblical account of creation is growing brighter and brighter as the ancient-earthers’ predictions are growing dimmer and dimmer. Or is that dumber and dumber?

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum