[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:
[b]Take the uranium-lead dating method. This method relies on the ratio of uranium-radiogenic lead for dating. However, in almost all deposits of uranium, there is also thorium, which produces radiogenic lead. Also, during the decay of uranium-lead, it produces helium. There is simply not enough helium in the atmosphere (less than 1/2000ths of the required amount) that is expected from this. You might say that it escapes the atmosphere. This is not true. Helium is quite a lot heavier than hydrogen and does not escape in significant amounts. Indeed, with the earth circulating around the solar system it picks up intersolar gas/dust, increasing the amount of helium on the earth.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
1) All of the dating methods have problems, but they do all give the same dates within reasonable margins of error. Its like trying to figure out what time it is when all of the clocks in the house are off by a few minutes one way or the other.
2)
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr6dud.htm
quote:
Now take carbon dating. Did you know that C14 is currently being created 25% faster than it is destroyed?
Actually, it is being released rapidly via the burning of fossil fuels. Nuclear tests in the fifties added a big chunk as well. So c-14 isn't used on anything very recent.
quote:
That the level of C14 is not in equilibrium? If you take the figures and take it back to a time where there is no C14, it gives the date of the earth as <10 000 yrs.
Fossil fuels have been used extensively for two or three hundred years at most. It is inaccurate to extrapolate backwards from today, without accounting for that.
quote:
Now take solar dust. If the universe really is billions of years old, at the rate dust falls on planets and solar bodies, the moon should be in dozens of feet of dust. And so should the earth. That is what NASA feared when they landed probes on the moon, that they would be swmaped with dust. This dust contains lots of radioactive elements, such as iridium. Now the earth has nowhere near the expected levels of these elements.
Based upon an inaccurate estimate of cosmic dust.
quote:
Now take the faint-sun paradox. If the earth really is all those billions of years old, the earth should have received ~25% less light then compared to now, making the earth freezingly cold. Reaction processes would be very slow. There is no geological evidence that the earth was significantly cooler all those years ago. Ice ages don't count.
Ok. Fine. So what? Before the sun ignited such would have been the case. But earths own gravitational contraction would have heated it to a liguid anyway.
There is no geological evidence of anything from before the Earth's crust solidified.
quote:
Take the moon. If the moon really is as old as people think it is, then it should have escaped long ago. The current rate the moon is moving away is 4cm / yr. It would have been even higher in the past. Extrapolating backwards, the ABSOLUTE maximum given ideal conditions and assuptions would have it less than 1.4 billion years old.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html ... note the part that states that the moon is now retreating anomalously rapidly.
quote:
Take salt in the oceans. If the earth really is as old as the billions of years, the oceans should be a helluva lot saltier than they are.
Salt doesn't get to the ocean and stay. It settles out into the ocean floor-- directly or in the bodies of dead ocean critters. It is then lifted back out by plate techtonics. ----- off the top of my head
quote:
Then take magnetic reversals. Evolutionists always thought they took millions of years to occur. In April 1989, a paper appeared in Earth and Planetary Science Letters by Robert S. Coe and Michel Prevotfound a thin lava layer which had 90 degrees of reversal recorded continuously in it and they calculated that the layer had to cool down within a matter of 15 days or less.
Cite.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
™ Version 4.2