skip to content »

nasha-shkola2.ru

Creationism vs radiometric dating

creationism vs radiometric dating-27

Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life.

creationism vs radiometric dating-27

Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well.There is a radioactive form of thorium that also decays into lead.There is an isotope of samarium that decays into neodymium, and one of rubidium that decays into strontium.It’s available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation, a fellowship of Christians in science.To those who have not encountered the topic before the paper can seem very convincing.For more than ten years now a paper by Roger Wiens entitled ‘Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective’ has been saying that radio-isotopic dating is absolutely reliable and the earth is definitely millions of years old.

Wiens, a physicist employed by the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, presents his paper as a long and detailed tutorial on the theory behind radioactive dating.

First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young.

If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far.

The unstable potassium isotope is called the parent while the argon product is called the daughter.

There are a couple of different radioactive forms of uranium that decay into lead.

They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.