Creationist claims radiometric dating Sex profiles no sign up

The only thing that I can be 100% certain of is my own existence.

Thus, at this broad definition, I am “assuming” that I am actually in a real, physical universe.

The answer is that in many cases (if we choose the right element for the right rock) we have excellent reasons for believing that D and they have to rule out the possibility that additional quantities of the daughter element have been added since the time the rock was formed.

Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation 'Research' (ICR) collected a dacite sample from Mt. Helens, Washington State, USA, which probably erupted in 1986 AD. then ineffectively separated the sample into several mineral and glass 'fractions', submitted the dacite and its 'fractions' for potassium 40-argon 40 (K-Ar) dating, and subsequently used the bogus results to inappropriately attack the K-Ar method.

Fortunately, I think that even creationists would agree with me that this definition is not really useful, and I don’t think that it is the definition that they are operating under.

A second, independent, astronomical method is to use standard techniques to measure some parameters of stars (mass, luminosity, compositor, and surface temperature), from which a well-confirmed theory of the life histories of stars enables physicists to compute their. Finally, considerations of radioactive decay make it possible to calculate the time at which certain heavy elements were formed.

So we can conclude can both be calculated by measuring the amounts of parent and daughter isotopes found in the present rock.

As Dalrymple (1994) points out, available techniques give us more than the accuracy we need. How can we figure out the amount of the daughter element originally present?

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

My aim in the following brief discussion is simply to hit the high spots.

If a radioactive isotope (the parent element) was originally present in a rock at the time of its formation, then that isotope would give rise, by radioactive decay, to decay products (daughter elements). Then, by the assumption that parent and daughter atoms neither entered nor exited, we know that the extra daughter atoms that are now present must come from decay of the parent.

Some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating does not work on theoretical grounds (for example, Arndts and Overn 1981; Gill 1996) but such attempts invariably have fatal flaws (see Dalrymple 1984; York and Dalrymple 2000).

Other creationists have focused on instances in which radiometric dating seems to yield incorrect results.

Leave a Reply