Could radiometric dating be wrong

Posted by / 10-Nov-2017 13:43

When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result.

The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems.

To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as: There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older “ages.” Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years.

Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,[8] points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.

Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? He said, This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago.

It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant “dates” for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.[7] Also, volcanoes emit much COC.

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates.

This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years.

Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable C.

So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living.

could radiometric dating be wrong-85could radiometric dating be wrong-72could radiometric dating be wrong-1

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance.

One thought on “could radiometric dating be wrong”