Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
40 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (2 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,701 Year: 9,449/23,288 Month: 464/1,544 Week: 178/561 Day: 4/14 Hour: 1/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?
Inactive Member

Message 3 of 114 (13857)
07-20-2002 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
07-20-2002 11:05 AM

"I'm pretty new to the evolution vs. creation debate, only having studied the subject for about four months and only having read a few books (Finding Darwin's God, Climbing Mount Improbable, Darwin's Black Box, and Tower of Babel) about the subject. At the moment, I am convinced that evolution is right and that the earth is far older than six thousand years old."
--I really have yet to read a book directed at the subject of Creation & Evolution, I just read science texts and articles and see where it takes me. I had a big episode in my early times for Evo vs. Cre debate where I read tons of AiG articles. This was about 7 months or so ago and haven't read too many at all for the YEC camp. I think I do fine without them . Besides, those AiG articles aren't going to give you near what you find when doing your own research and I don't enjoy parroting.

"However, I am interested in radiometric dating and if it is really as accurate as geologists claim it to be. I've read several articles at True.Origin.org and Answersingenesis.org about radiometric dating and they claim that it is unreliable, that different dating techniques give totally random dates when dating the same rock, that radioisotope dating is based on several assumptions, and that geologists have a fixed idea in their minds about how old a rock is from the strata it's found in, and if they date it radiometrically and the date is different from what they thought it would be, they just throw the rock away saying the date is meaningless."
--Why wouldn't they, they already have all this other evidence for an old earth and a set geologic time so why not attribute the correct date to the one which complies. And if an Old earth is assumed correct, this is reasonable.

"I have also read several articles talking about how accurate radiometric dating is, and how yes, the dates do agree."
--And what this means is what is important, the majority of 'dates' compiled will agree, no problem there.

"I am wondering if the creationists' claims are correct, or are they simply throwing blind attacks against modern geology?"
--In my experience, they are correct,. However, they take the product and put unnecessary emphasis on what is irrelevant to the real issue. Such as anomalous dates, etc.

"I'm just another dude trying to figure out the truth. Help me out by having a big debate here."
--I like the word 'discussion', it seems more pervasive. Just my opinion though.

[Edit]Some basic brief discussion on Geochemistry and Radioisotopic distribution/dating may be found in the last three posts here:


And welcome to the board Evo Dude


[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-20-2002]

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-20-2002 11:05 AM EvO-DuDe has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 6 of 114 (13868)
07-20-2002 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by EvO-DuDe
07-20-2002 3:15 PM

"TrueCreation, how old do you think the earth is?"
--I 'believe' that the earth is in the realm of thousands of years, but based on the science and the inclusion of catastrophism, I could give you a lee-way up to 200k, or maybe even 30k. But I stick with the former, there is little that I know of that is unable to cope.

"If you believe that it is young, can you explain why radioisotope dating techniques give such huge ages?"
--Because of Geochemistry and the Earths evolution through time, the bulk of which I logically attribute to the formation of the earths crust and chemical fractionation thereof.

"Do you believe that the decay rates were much faster in the past, or do you believe that God created the universe with an 'appearence of age'?"
--Technically, I don't believe God created the universe with an appearance of age. But I would attribute an episode of accelerated decay somewhere in the past.

"Can you give me some scientific evidence for a young earth?
--I don't think this is the right question, really. A more penetrating question would be if there is evidence that contradicts a young earth, because I could sit here and show you how whatever and whatever can be attributed to a young earth formation, but that wouldn't matter because thats just a lower limit to the age of the earth. I also unfortunately am unaware of any systematic mechanism by which reliable dates may be obtained.

"It seems to me that all of the creationists' best evidences for a young earth (decay of the magnetic field, too little helium in the atmosphere, accumulations of dust on the moon, etc.) were proven to be wrong."
--From your list, seemingly your looking in the wrong places.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-20-2002 3:15 PM EvO-DuDe has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by edge, posted 07-20-2002 6:51 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 07-21-2002 6:13 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020