Creationist view radiometric dating
Their strong bias for a very old universe causes them to make assumptions that will favor their bias.” “Professor Richard Arculus assumes that 6.5 billion years ago supernovae created most of the uranium for our planet.He bases this on the belief that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the production ratio of U-235 and U-238 in a supernova is about 1.65.
“The widespread emanation of C-free volcanogenic carbon dioxide after the Flood would have further inflated the carbon-14 dates of tree rings in a systematic manner in many parts of the world.”[vii] Naturalists have to assume whether wood remains were near volcanic vents or not.Geologist Dr Steve Austin dated rocks from two lava flows in two different layers in the Grand Canyon and found the lower (older) rocks to be 270 million years younger than the higher (younger) rocks.[x] “A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.” “Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii.A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon” as being around 1.5 million years old or more.[xi] 11 different rock samples were taken from 3 different eruptions (1949, 1954, 1975) of Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand and “the ‘ages’ of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.”[xii] Also, “the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt.The same is true for dating methods using other isotopes.” In fact, if stars exploded and sent radioactive elements out into space, “this long period of interstellar residency would see the extinction of short and medium-lived isotopes, such as polonium since they would decay to lead long before reaching the earth.” “The measured thorium and neodymium ratios of stars in our stellar neighborhood, if accepted at face value, strongly indicate that no significant amount of time has passed since the creation of these isotopes.Virtually all the initial thorium is still there, meaning not enough time has passed for significant decay of thorium.There are many assumptions that have to be made when using radiometric dating methods that might make these techniques unreliable.
If any of these assumptions are wrong, then the reliability of the testing method can and should be put in question.
The three main assumptions that affect the results of radiometric dating are: 1) the rate of decay has always been constant, 2) there has been no contamination (no movement of elements into or out of the object over time), and 3) we can determine how much daughter element there was to begin with.[ii] There are many test results that make the reliability of these dating techniques very questionable.[iii] Naturalists try to explain these questionable results, but still can’t adequately explain them from their worldview.[iv] Evidence from “as far back as 1971” may show “that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.”[v] Naturalists even admit that radiocarbon dating does not work on living mussels because of the lack of new carbon in that environment.
So what other situations and conditions create unreliable results that we must also throw out the dating because of?
[xxiv] Naturalistic scientists have used many methods to try to figure out when the supernovae created the majority of uranium, and naturalists say “that the results from the various methods used are independently derived, making the age determinations that much more reliable.
The blind spot in evolutionary thinking is the basic assumptions evolutionists make employing each method.
Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!