Creation ministries radiometric dating

On the other hand, would I bet my life on the supposed age of a rock, or fossil based on radiometric dating and the testimony of some Ph D scientists?

No, never; and I dare say neither would those same scientists because they know the limitations of the science.

[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.

From the data above, obviously that is not the case.

That there are different methods of determining weight is irrelevant to the fact that your weight is a single number, not a different number based on the method used.

So if you in fact weigh 175 lbs, you would not expect one method to give you 50 lbs, another to give 250 and yet another to give you 388 lbs.

By dating rocks of known ages which give highly inflated ages, geologists have shown this method can’t give reliable absolute ages.

Many geologists claim that radiometric “clocks” show rocks to be millions of years old.

The evidence many find persuasive: radiometric dating.

But is radiometric dating really the objective hard science many believe it to be?

Though they are very tiny, polonium radiohalos have a huge message that cannot be ignored.

They point to a catastrophic origin for granites, consistent with the biblical timeframe for earth history and God’s judgment during the Flood.

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.

Tags: , ,