Consequently, much attention has been given in the past decade to the development of methods involving the radioactive isotopes of the alkali metals, rubidium and potassium. These are much more common, and the potassium minerals especially are commonly found in sedimentary rocks. One of the main workers in the development of the rubidium-strontium method has been Dr. The main question about the method has been the lack of agreement concerning the disintegration rate of rubidium. The final decision regarding the half-life has yet to be made. Ahrens, another leading worker in this field, gives a list of different determinations of the half-life of rubidium as made by various scientists, showing a variation all the way from 48 to billion years
Is Light Slowing Down?
Therefore, the Earth was years old. During the late 18th and early 19th century, a German mineralogist, Abraham Gottlob Werner, proposed that all of the Earth’s rocks were formed by rapid chemical precipitation from a “world ocean,” which he then summarily disposed of in catastrophic fashion. Though not directed toward the genesis of landforms in any coherent fashion, his catastrophic philosophy of changes of the Earth had two major consequences of geomorphic significance. First, it indirectly led to the formulation of an opposing, less extreme view by the Scottish scientist James Hutton in Second, it was in some measure correct:
We have been told that dating methods, such as the rates of decay of radioactive elements, force an honest observer to an old-Earth conclusion. The problems with this .
It cannot date fossils and rocks and can only date objects that are a few thousand years old, not millions of years old. Radiological dating gives rather extreme age variation, and its interpretation requires many assumptions. The truth is that new scientific discoveries and radiocarbon dating prove that evolution is a hoax. Radiocarbon dating can only date an object that is about 30, or so years old.
It has a half life or decay rate of 5, years, and after half lives, it becomes too small to measure. We can only use radiocarbon dating to date items several thousand years old.
Young Earth creationists, why do you say scientific dating methods are wrong..?
Radioisotope dating shows the earth to be billions of years old. T38, 4: What We Really Know about Dating Methods When someone mentions scientific dating methods, the first thing to come to mind for most people is carbon dating. However, there are many methods that can be used to determine the age of the earth or other objects. The textbooks focus on relative dating, based on the layering of the rocks, and radiometric dating.
troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life. Some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating.
Sorry, something has gone wrong. This assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation were literal hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous gaps in the chronology of Genesis. The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham.
By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about years old, give or take a few hundred years. What about the billions of years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions? This age is primarily derived from two dating techniques: Scientists who advocate the younger age of about years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning.
Moreover, they point to the debunking of old-earth myths, like the popular misconception that it takes long periods of time for stratification, fossilization and the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc, to occur. Finally, young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age for the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.
Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven.
Radiometric Dating and Creation Science
Do not use without permission. Up until the 17 and 18 hundreds most everybody believed that the earth was young. A mere 6 thousand years or so.
17 K-Ar and Ar-Ar Dating Simon Kelley Department of Earth Sciences The Open University Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, United Kingdom first principles dating of standards), dating fine grained clay samples, dating young basalts and obtaining dates in rapid turnaround times. Ar-Ar dating is now used in a very THE K-AR AND AR-AR DATING METHODS.
Until recent years, scientists who believe in creation haven’t had the necessary resources to explore radiometric dating in detail. A 10 gram sample of U Now that has changed, and some important discoveries are being made. When granite rock hardens, it freezes radioactive elements in place. The most common radioactive element in granite is Uranium This element is locked in tiny zircons within the granite.
As part of the decay process, helium is produced. While it stays within the zircon for a period of time, being a very small atom, helium escapes the zircon within a few thousand years.
Senior research scientist Alexander Cherkinsky specializes in the preparation of samples for Carbon testing. He directed the pretreatment and processing of the dinosaur bone samples with the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer, though he did not know the bones were from dinosaurs, and he signed the reports. Carbon dating at this facility is certainly the very best.
For many other reasons, the radio dating methods, carbon, potassium-argon, or any other atomic-clock method, are unreliable for very large ages. Entropy The Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that in a closed system, as time flows forward, energy in the universe is becoming less and less available.
The first facts about the Earth were worked out by the Ancient Greeks. He thought the Earth must have developed by slow, natural forces. He studied geology in the field. He could see signs of erosion on land and sedimentation in the sea. His work stayed in manuscript until after his death, when it was published after its editor had made changes which damaged it. Now there is a better modern edition based on the manuscripts.
1. Rate of Decay
Geomagnetic field decay Dr. Barnes , a physics teacher at the University of Texas, has authored a widely used college textbook on electricity and magnetism. His examination of the data of years shows that the earth’s magnetic field is decaying exponentially, according to a decay law similar to that observed in radioactive decay.
This lesson informs students about the dating methods that enable science to have a high level of confidence in the geological ages of an old Earth. At the same time, it discusses how pseudoscience can misrepresent geological dating.
How accurate are carbon-dating methods? All methods of radioactive dating rely on three assumptions that may not necessarily be true: Rate of Decay It is assumed that the rate of decay has remained constant over time. 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.
Evolutionists assume that the rate of cosmic bombardment of the atmosphere has always remained constant and that the rate of decay has remained constant. Thus radioactive dating relies purely on assumptions. We could put forward the following counter arguments to the constancy of these assumptions: The current high rate of entry might be a consequence of a disturbed post-Flood environment that altered the carbon to carbon ratio.
Radiometric Dating and Creation Science
Both old earth creationism and young earth creationism seek to solve the apparent conflict between science and the Bible in regard to the age of the earth. What is the apparent conflict? If the book of Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6, years old. In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around 4.
Carbon Dating Most everyone has heard of Carbon dating on the news or elsewhere sometime in the past years. The reaction must have started when the Earth was formed, and thus the reaction would reach equilibrium after the Earth was 30, years old. “”The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are. undeniably deep and serious.
However, these excessively long ages are easily explained within the biblical worldview, and 14C actually presents a serious problem for believers in an old earth. Nearly anyone can verify this for themselves using basic multiplication and division. Any carbon atom has six protons within its nucleus, but the different isotopes have different numbers of neutrons. Cosmic rays mainly high-energy protons trigger a process in the atmosphere that changes atmospheric nitrogen into 14C.
However, unlike the other two carbon isotopes, 14C is unstable and eventually decays back into nitrogen. The decay rate can be measured for a large number of these 14C atoms. Since this decay process slows as the number of 14C atoms decreases, it may be expressed best in terms of a half-life, which is the amount of time for half of any given sample of 14C to decay back into nitrogen.
Thus, after one half-life, 50 percent of the original 14C atoms will remain. After two half-lives, 25 percent of the original 14C will remain, and so on. Once they die, however, organisms no longer take in new carbon, and the amount of 14C in their bodies begins to decrease. But the calculated dates will only be accurate if the assumptions behind the method are correct.
Young earth evidence
I was raised in church, and believed the Bible except for early Genesis , since my church was liberal and I hadn’t become a born-again Christian. I had an active interest in science, and so I believed in evolution and ancient Earth-age, because that was what they taught in school. That belief was reinforced when the Army put me in the Manhattan Project developing the first atomic bomb and I met a number of scientists whose names you’ve all heard of. He and a few others were Wheaton graduates, and Christians, who believed in Progressive Creation.
We often had lunch together, and the subject of origins was one of our favorite “arguing points. By the way, most Young Earth Creationists believe that God miraculously created the Earth and its inhabitants in a six-day period, no more than some thousands of years ago, not millions or billions.
radiocarbon dating (old-earth vs. young-earth methods), assignment help; January 9, Uncategorised. Question description. Content In general, your paper must contain an introductory paragraph, the body of your work, and a conclusion. In.
Kepler-6b photometry  A simulated silhouette of Jupiter and 3 of its moons transiting our Sun, as seen from another star system While the radial velocity method provides information about a planet’s mass, the photometric method can determine the planet’s radius. If a planet crosses transits in front of its parent star’s disk, then the observed visual brightness of the star drops by a small amount; depending on the relative sizes of the star and the planet.
For example, in the case of HD , the star dims by 1. However, most transit signals are considerably smaller; for example, an Earth-size planet transiting a Sun-like star produces a dimming of only 80 parts per million 0. This method has two major disadvantages. First, planetary transits are observable only when the planet’s orbit happens to be perfectly aligned from the astronomers’ vantage point.
The probability of a planetary orbital plane being directly on the line-of-sight to a star is the ratio of the diameter of the star to the diameter of the orbit in small stars, the radius of the planet is also an important factor. For a planet orbiting a Sun-sized star at 1 AU , the probability of a random alignment producing a transit is 0.
OVERVIEW OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION SCIENCE
Two Responses And a Few Good Lessons If a student ever challenges you with criticisms of the reliability or validity of geological age-dating methods, point out that Provide a copy of Evidence for Ancient Earth links and introductions for two articles, one by Christian physicist Roger Wiens, the other by radiochronologist G.
Then tactfully and gently challenge that person to bring you a link to any empirical study pointing to a young Earth. After all, this is the way scientists test alternative ideas. For a broader perspective, for students who have deep conflicts between their religious views and the scientific findings of modern geology, recommend this book:
Jul 29, · Evidence for a young Earth: Marc’s dating methods All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.
Carbon 14 is used for this example: This nullifies the carbon method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10, years old. The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist “facts” can be, let’s do a little research of our own. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon method if it were so obviously flawed.
Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming? This argument was popularized by Henry Morris , p. In another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon production to decay, concluded that only years passed since carbon started forming in the atmosphere! The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides.
We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast.