Creationist arguments against radiometric dating

Content
  • How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
  • Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
  • Choose country
  • Teaching about Radiometric Dating
  • Refuting the Critics: Radiometric Dating
  • Radiometric Dating

You’ve got two decay products, lead and helium, and they’re giving two different ages for the zircon. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques. These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong.

How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?

Often, critics of biblical creation will comment on my Facebook posts. Some of them have intelligent questions which I am happy to answer. But many critics simply post unsubstantiated, false assertions or emotionally charged rhetoric that is devoid of any rational content. It is a waste of time to interact with such trolls see Proverbs 9: But it can be encouraging to the Christian to examine these arguments to see how bad they are. Ironically, such rantings only serve to illustrate the truth of Romans 1: Our critic this week responded to my recent article on radiometric dating.[rs_table_products tableName=”Best Dating Websites”]

He made a number of assertions. Where the critic quotes the original article is in green text. Does this critic make any good, rational points? Or does he exhibit the typical ignorance of science and creation technical literature along with fallacious reasoning? The critic begins with a question-begging epithet fallacy. Simply asserting that your opponent is lying is the way children argue.

Rational adults are supposed to do better. Of course, any moral objection whatsoever presupposes the truth of the Bible, beginning in Genesis. This confirms the truth of Romans 1: From the listed genealogies, the creation of the universe happened about years ago. This relies on several poorly-founded presuppositions: The Genesis account of creation is an historical account. It is not a science textbook.

However, since Genesis is divinely inspired, inerrant, recorded history, when it touches on matters of science, it is necessarily right. Rather, it is what Genesis itself claims to be. Genesis 2: Ironically, to take it any other way would be a poorly-found presupposition — one that is contrary to what the text itself states. The Hebrew text requires them to be sequential because Genesis 1: Likewise, with the seventh day in Genesis 2: Are the days hours?

Genesis teaches that indeed these are ordinary earth-rotation days — a period of light followed by a period of darkness and bounded by evening and morning Genesis 1: Furthermore, Exodus Jesus affirmed that the light portion half of a day is indeed 12 hours on average John However, Hebrew scholar Dr. Steven Boyd researched this issue and found that the word is never used that way in Scripture.

So, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Old Testament genealogies had gaps. Think about it. Genesis 5: If there was a gap, and Seth was actually a grandchild, or great-grandchild, how much time would there be between Adam and Seth? The Bible give the actual ages. Then Seth lived eight hundred and seven years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years , and he died.

God does know how to count and how to add. In Mark None of these presuppositions are well-supported Biblically. So we have seen that in fact all of these things are biblical; most are directly stated in Scripture. This critic clearly does not know the Bible. This is, of course, one of the biggest, most constant lies of young-earth creationism YECism. Lots of things can be known without observing them. Notice how the critic dishonestly distorts the original claim and then proceeds to refute a straw-man of his own making.

The original claim was that age of something can only be known scientifically if its origin was observed. No creationist disputes that. If there is no observation, then the knowledge is not scientific. The reason should be obvious: The critic has dishonestly misrepresented my claim while ironically accusing me of lying. If I go out in the morning and see that the ground is wet all around, then I know it rained. All you would know scientifically from your observation is that the ground is wet.

As for the past event that caused it, there are many possibilities. Maybe the sprinklers just turned off. Dew often collects on the ground at night, resulting in a morning dampness even with no rain. Just think how many assumptions this critic made in his hasty conclusion that rain is the only possible explanation for wet grass. He is clearly not epistemologically self-conscious. If I see an adult human, I know that human must have been a baby at one point.

Adam and Eve would disagree. All you would know scientifically from your observation is that you see an adult human. To know how that person came about requires knowledge beyond your own direct observations. If I cut down several trees and count their rings, accounting for possible discrepancies by looking at more than just one, I know how old the trees were. All you know scientifically is how many rings the trees have. You might assume that trees always form one ring per year and then estimate the age.

But that is an assumption one that we now know to be false. Perhaps you assumed that the trees came about by natural processes. If you could travel back in time and measure the rings in the trees God placed in the Garden of Eden one day after their creation, you would get a drastically inflated age estimate if you assumed that one ring formed per year. Personally witnessing something is no requisite to knowing it, …. I agree! But my original claim was that scientific knowledge requires observation — by definition.

The critic is attempting to refute a straw-man position that I do not hold. If your memory is notoriously unreliable, then how can you possibly know anything at all? See, once you decide you are smarter than God, reject His Word, and substitute your own philosophy, it inevitably reduces to absurdity Romans 1: This is one more slanderous, false claim that YEC cultists make to try to make their nonsense seem more valid by comparison.

In his previous claim, the critic rebuked creationists for distinguishing between scientific observations of the present, and estimates about the past. Indeed, he claimed it was one of the biggest, most constant lies. My question: Are deep-time advocates aware of the important distinction between observations in the present, and estimates about the past? On the other hand, if deep-time advocates do ignore the important distinction between observations in the present and estimates about the past, then the critic is wrong in claim 3 and should repent for accusing creationist of slander when what they are saying is true.

Some critics are so eager to argue with Bible-believers that they will say anything, no matter how internally inconsistent, or arbitrary. That is, brand new rocks that formed from recent volcanic eruptions such as Mt. Helens have been age-dated using the potassium-argon method. Their estimated ages were reported as hundreds of thousands of years based on the argon content, even though the true age was less than 10 years.

No, this really happened and is well documented. Notice that at no point in his comments below does the critic point out any factual error at all in what I originally wrote. He just claims it is a lie, but provides no supporting evidence. This is simply a question-begging epithet fallacy. And it is dishonest.

The rocks in question were collected without regard for contamination, …. False, and again note that the critic provided no evidence whatsoever to back up his claim. Multiple samples of rocks within a unit are used to date the unit. False, and again the critic provides no evidence to back up his claims. All we have are a series of false assertions.

I must admit that I laughed out loud when I read the above claim because of its absurdity. Think about it: Because according to biblical creation, all rocks on earth are less than 2 million years old. Therefore, it will not consistently give the correct answer for any rock, since all rocks are younger than 2 million years.

Creationist arguments to the contrary are riddled with flaws, as is the ” Radiometric dating has never been validated against the absolute. Students, particularly Young-Earth Creationists, may come in with of radiometric dating and refuting misconceptions and creationist arguments on that topic.

What is a Christian to make of radioactive dating? To those who have not encountered the topic before the paper can seem very convincing. The problem is that the Bible plainly says that the world was created by God in six days. That is clear to anyone who reads it for the first time.

Students, particularly Young-Earth Creationists, may come in with misconceptions about how the age of the Earth and of various parts of the fossil record were determined.

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.

Choose country

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research ICR have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon C dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen N into carbon C or radiocarbon. Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C into their bodies along with other carbon isotopes.

Teaching about Radiometric Dating

Often, critics of biblical creation will comment on my Facebook posts. Some of them have intelligent questions which I am happy to answer. But many critics simply post unsubstantiated, false assertions or emotionally charged rhetoric that is devoid of any rational content. It is a waste of time to interact with such trolls see Proverbs 9: But it can be encouraging to the Christian to examine these arguments to see how bad they are. Ironically, such rantings only serve to illustrate the truth of Romans 1: Our critic this week responded to my recent article on radiometric dating. He made a number of assertions.

Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. Even the way dates are reported e.

Creationist’s Blind Dates. The standard scientific estimate is that the universe is about 15 billion years old, the earth about 4. It is important to recognize from the start that there are independent procedures for obtaining each of these estimates, and that the procedures yield ranges of values that overlap. In the case of the universe, estimates can be obtained from astronomical methods or considerations of nuclear reactions.

Refuting the Critics: Radiometric Dating

Carbon 14 is used for this example: The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist “facts” can be, let’s do a little research of our own. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon method if it were so obviously flawed. Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming? This argument was popularized by Henry Morris , p. In another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon production to decay, concluded that only years passed since carbon started forming in the atmosphere! The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides. We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast. The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon atoms in the upper atmosphere.

Radiometric Dating

Танкадо и не думал уничтожать главный банк данных – он хотел только, чтобы мы обнародовали ТРАНСТЕКСТ. Тогда он дал бы нам ключ, чтобы мы могли уничтожить вирус. Сьюзан стало абсолютно очевидно, что план Танкадо ужасным образом рухнул. Он не собирался умирать. Он рассчитывал, сидя в испанском баре, услышать по Си-эн-эн пресс-конференцию об американском сверхсекретном компьютере, способном взломать любые шифры.

Ноги несли его с такой быстротой, на какую, казалось ему, он не был способен. Когда он влетел во вращающуюся дверь, прозвучал еще один выстрел. Стеклянная панель обдала его дождем осколков. Дверь повернулась и мгновение спустя выкинула его на асфальт. Беккер увидел ждущее такси.

Компания связана обязательством ни при каких условиях не раскрывать подлинное имя или адрес пользователя. – Это не доказательство, – сказал Стратмор.  – Но кажется довольно подозрительным. Сьюзан кивнула. – То есть вы хотите сказать, Танкадо не волновало, что кто-то начнет разыскивать Северную Дакоту, потому что его имя и адрес защищены компанией ARA. – Верно. Сьюзан на секунду задумалась. – ARA обслуживает в основном американских клиентов.

Беккер смущенно подвинулся. Клушар вдруг разбушевался. – Я знал, что он меня не слушает. Вот так и рождаются слухи. Я сказал ему, что японец отдал свое кольцо – но не. Да я бы ничего и не взял у умирающего. О небо.

– Джабба сунул в рот кусочек сыра моцарелла.  – Кроме всего прочего, вирус просто не может проникнуть в ТРАНСТЕКСТ. Сквозь строй – лучший антивирусный фильтр из всех, что я придумал. Через эту сеть ни один комар не пролетит. Выдержав долгую паузу, Мидж шумно вздохнула. – Возможны ли другие варианты.

Radiometric Dating is Flawed!! Really?? How Old IS the Earth?p{text-indent: 1.5em;}

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.