Tautology and Radiometric dating
When ever the age of the earth is debated with evolutionists they will quote a date that was determined by a method used by the majority of scientists. That method uses index fossils (fossils that evolutionists believed lived at a certain time) found in the strata being dated or certain strata (strata that evolutionists believed existed at a certain time) is used to date an unknown fossil. It is a circular reasoning known as tautology that is all based on the dogma of the evolutionary religion. When evolutionists are confronted with this line of thought they are quick to answer that they rely on radiometric dating to confirm their beliefs now. Yet they will not mention that radiometric dating is not being used as often as they think and it has been proven to be inaccurate.
There were two peer reviewed papers written about the dating problems. One is in the Journal Nature by Tom Clarke (October 9, 2003) entitled "Geologists seek to put an end to blind dates" and the other is in the Journal Science by Richard Kerr (October 2003) entitled "A Call for Telling Better Time Over the Eons" both talk about the earth science meeting held in Washington DC that year. The titles of these papers alone are very revealing.
Clarke says that radiometric dating is more work intensive than earth scientists can handle and very cost restrictive. Because of this he states:
"So researchers often simply estimate rock ages by comparing the fossil found in one stripe of rock to another of known age."
So the index fossil procedure is still being used and preached as fact. Now Clarke and the others want a standard procedure set so every one will be able to use dates that agree with each other. Guess who will be the ones setting the standard for the date setting? Evolutionists of course, so they can have everything agree with their religions god of time.
The inaccurate and conflicting dating from the radiometric process is what Kerr admits in his paper when he states:
"The general sparseness of reliable ages was the primary complaint at the workshop."
Their main thought was:
"We have to make sure we're all getting the same answer on the same rocks."
What an admission. They can not get the same answers from the same rocks but they want us to believe that radiometric dating is highly accurate. Then they make bold claims about the data that can not be verified.
It would be like coming into a house and seeing a candle burning and there is only one inch of wax is left how can I tell how long the candle has been burning? I can not tell since I do not know the length of the candle was when it was lit. If I did know the length it was when it started how do I know it was continually burning? Maybe it was extinguished and started a couple of times before I got there. These are the same problems evolutionists have with the isotopes they are measuring in the rocks. They have no idea how much was there to begin with nor do they know if the decay was a constant. It is all based on assumptions. Kerr acknowledges the problems of radiometric dating when he states:
"Long-recognized problems with standards, interlab calibrations, and sample processing have limited both the precision and the accuracy of uranium-lead and argon-argon radiometric dating."
The isochrones that geologists have pointed to as the element of accuracy in radiometric dating has now been shown to be invalid as reported in the Journal Geology by Jon Davidson, Bruce Charlier, John Hora, and Rebecca Perlroth (January 1, 2005) in their study entitled "Mineral Isochrons and Isotopic Fingerprinting: Pitfalls and Promises." Here is there opening sentence of the study:
"The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at eh tome of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages."
They go on to state that for rocks to be dated using isochrons they must know the speed of the rocks diffusion and the how fast it cooled down. The cooling process is based on what temperature the magma started at and the amount of magma involved. They also claim that the assumption of a constant ratio used by geologists when they use isochron analysis may not be valid. This is due to the four points of variation in the initial ratios; 1) the number of forming stages of the rock, 2) contamination by the earth's crust, 3) fragmentary absorption of parent isotopes, 4) the recharging of the magma. Even if the variations can be accounted for and the isochrons generated are very good they claim "the ages are geologically meaningless."
It appears that radiometric dating has problems that make it unreliable.
So the question is if radiometric dating is so accurate why do they obtain different dates on the same strata? Because of these problems researchers have resorted to index fossils then picking and choosing radiometric dates that agree with their presupposed dates and throwing out dates that do not agree.
It looks as though evolutionists are scambling to justify their clinging to their 19th century reiligion.
RSB
|
|
Author: rsbarclay
Location: Tower Minnesota USA
Gender: Male
Age: 57
Blog Entries: 16 (archive)
Blog Comments: 17
i am 56 years old. i have been married for 37 years and looking forward to many more years with my wife. we were blessed with three daughters that are grown and on their own. i have worked in the printing industry for 20 years. other jobs i had where...
view full biography
i received jesus as my lord and savior in february 1971. i love sharing what i have learned and experienced in my life time. i have attended numerous evangelism workshops, seminars, and training programs. i was born and raised in a christian family. however, i resisted all of dad and...
view full testimony
Is evolution a religion...
Faith in Salvation...
EPA and CO2...
“Isms” of sci...
What is faith?...
What did the Old Testamen...
A look at the importance ...
Wind Power Problems...
Is Global Warming Happeni...
Erosion of millions of ye...
|
Log Into Chatroom 
