Radioisotope dating assumptions

Rated 3.95/5 based on 991 customer reviews

While there is no proof that the rates were different in the past than they are today, there is also no proof that they were the same.

Thus radioactive dating relies purely on assumptions.

Some claim Genesis in particular, and the Bible in general looks mythical from this standpoint.

A full discussion of the topic must therefore include the current scientific challenge to the OE concept.

If radiometric dating works—and I believe it reveals accurate dates most of the time—Christians should not be intimidated.

Geologists have known for a long time that the isotope geochemistry of Earth is complex, and that radiometric dating does not always return what is considered to be a geologically-valid result, but there is no reason for old-Earth Christians to be intimidated by discrepant dates.

It refers to one specific source of error – the uncertainty in the measurement of the amounts of various atoms used in the analysis.

Young-Earth creationists regularly attack radiometric dating techniques, thinking that if they discredit these methods they will undermine the idea of an ancient Earth, but this is not the case.This assumption is backed by numerous scientific studies and is relatively sound.However, conditions may have been different in the past and could have influenced the rate of decay or formation of radioactive elements.Most people accept the current old-earth (OE) age estimate of around 4.6 billion years.This age is obtained from radiometric dating and is assumed by evolutionists to provide a sufficiently long time-frame for Darwinian evolution.

Leave a Reply