Main -> And dating -> Radioactive dating no problem for the Bible -

Radioactive dating no problem for the Bible -

Re - Radiometric Dating Debunked in 3 Minutes

What is a Christian to make of radioactive dating? To those who have not encountered the topic before the paper can seem very convincing. The problem is that the Bible plainly says that the world was created by God in six days. That is clear to anyone who reads it for the first time. Furthermore, from the detailed chronologies given, we know that creation happened about 4, years before Christ. That was the orthodox view of the Christian church for 1, years.

During the century after Lyell and Darwin and up until aboutthe reaction of practically all Christian leaders was to accept uniformitarianism and the radiometric ages, accommodating them by either the gap theory or the day-age theory. There were a few exceptions. Perhaps the first was Dudley Joseph Whitney, an agricultural scientist who had graduated from Berkeley and then edited various agricultural journals. In this paper, Whitney developed the evidences for a young earth based on: 1 influx of sodium and other chemicals into the ocean; 2 depletion of the land by leaching; 3 sedimentation rates; 4 build-up of helium in the atmosphere; 5 disintegration of comets; 6 influx of meteorites and their nickel-iron contents on the earth; and 7 efflux of water from earth's interior by volcanism.

Most of these evidences are still relevant. Whitney then added a brief critique of the assumptions in radioactive dating. He commented on the many discordances in results, the problem of separating "common lead" from radiogenic lead, the possibility that some of the supposed radiogenic elements could have been added either before or after deposition, the possibility of changes in disintegration rates, the possibility of selective leaching, and the many conflicts with previously assumed geologic ages.

Radiometric Dating Simply Explained - Linnea - Seattle, WA - Atheist Experience 22.06

These criticisms also are still valid. Whitney published many other papers, as well as two small books, all advocating recent creation and flood geology. He was even able to get at least one paper included in the Reports of the Committee on Geologic Time he was on good terms with Professor Lane and in the Pan-American Geologist.

It covered much the same ground as Whitney had done, but in more detail and with better documentation. It was instrumental in my own decision to abandon the gap theory I had already given up on theistic evolution and the day-age theory in favor of the young earth. My first book, That You Might Believe published inhad briefly questioned the reliability of radioactive dating, but also had allowed for the gap theory. But then I read Burdick's paper and was convinced that such a compromise was unnecessary scientifically.

In the meantime, I had made a verse-by-verse study of the whole Bible on this subject and found that the Bible could not legitimately allow for an old earth see my book, Biblical Creationismwhich demonstrates this fact by analyzing every relevant Biblical passage.

In I enrolled for graduate work at the University of Minnesota, taking a minor in geology and spending much time in the geological library there and studying carefully the Annual Reports of the Committee on Geologic Time.

During this period, I also revised my book, deleting the discussion of the gap theory and expanding its critique of radiometric dating. At the university I also took a course on geophysics which included sections on radiometric dating. They and others like them will accept literal creationism only when they are convinced that secular scientists believe it.

Helens have been age-dated using the potassium-argon method. Their estimated ages were reported as hundreds of thousands of years based on the argon content, even though the true age was less than 10 years.

Since the method has been shown to fail on rocks whose age is known, would it make sense to trust the method on rocks of unknown age? But many secular scientists continue to trust the potassium-argon model-age method on rocks of unknown age. If so, then their true ages are much less than their radiometric age estimates.

The age estimate could be wrong by a factor of hundreds of thousands. But how would you know? We must also note that rocks are not completely solid, but porous. And gas can indeed move through rocks, albeit rather slowly.

So the assumption that all the produced argon will remain trapped in the rock is almost certainly wrong. And it is also possible for argon to diffuse into the rock of course, depending on the relative concentration. So the system is not as closed as secularists would like to think. There are some mathematical methods by which scientists attempt to estimate the initial quantity of elements in a rock, so that they can compensate for elements like argon that might have been present when the rock first formed.

Such techniques are called isochron methods. They are mathematically clever, and we may explore them in a future article. However, like the model-age method, they are known to give incorrect answers when applied to rocks of known age. And neither the model-age method nor the isochron method are able to assess the assumption that the decay rate is uniform. As we will see below, this assumption is very dubious.

Years ago, a group of creation scientists set out to explore the question of why radiometric dating methods give inflated age estimates. We know they do because of the aforementioned tests on rocks whose origins were observed. But why? Which of the three main assumptions initial conditions are known, rate of decay is known, the system is close is false?

To answer this question, several creation geologists and physicists came together to form the RATE research initiative R adioisotopes and the A ge of T he E arth. This multi-year research project engaged in several different avenues of study, and found some fascinating results.

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Answer: Radiometric dating does not fit with the “young earth” view. Radiometric dating is a method which scientists use to determine the age of various. What is a Christian to make of radioactive dating? The problem is that the Bible plainly says that the world was created by God in six days.

As mentioned above, the isochron method uses some mathematical techniques in an attempt to estimate the initial conditions and assess the closed-ness of the system. However, neither it nor the model-age method allow for the possibility that radioactive decay might have occurred at a different rate in the past.

In other words, all radiometric dating methods assume that the half-life of any given radioactive element has always been the same as it is today. If that assumption is false, then all radiometric age estimates will be unreliable. As it turns out, there is compelling evidence that the half-lives of certain slow-decaying radioactive elements were much smaller in the past.

This may be the main reason why radiometric dating often gives vastly inflated age estimates. First, a bit of background information is in order.

Most physicists had assumed that radioactive half-lives have always been what they are today. Many experiments have confirmed that most forms of radioactive decay are independent of temperature, pressure, external environment, etc. In other words, the half-life of carbon is years, and there is nothing you can do to change it. Given the impossibility of altering these half-lives in a laboratory, it made sense for scientists to assume that such half-lives have always been the same throughout earth history.

But we now know that this is wrong. In fact, it is very wrong. More recently, scientists have been able to change the half-lives of some forms of radioactive decay in a laboratory by drastic amounts. However, by ionizing the Rhenium removing all its electronsscientists were able to reduce the half-life to only 33 years! In other words, the Rhenium decays over 1 billion times faster under such conditions.

Thus, any age estimates based on Rhenium-Osmium decay may be vastly inflated. The RATE research initiative found compelling evidence that other radioactive elements also had much shorter half-lives in the past. Several lines of evidence suggest this. But for brevity and clarity, I will mention only one.

This involves the decay of uranium into lead Unlike the potassium-argon decay, the uranium-lead decay is not a one-step process. Rather, it is a step process. Uranium decays into thorium, which is also radioactive and decays into polonium, which decays into uranium, and so on, eventually resulting in lead, which is stable.

The development of radiometric dating during the early decades of the 20th . and dying during the long geologic ages before God could get around to creating .

Eight of these fourteen decays release an alpha-particle: the nucleus of a helium atom which consists of two protons and two neutrons. The helium nucleus quickly attracts a couple of electrons from the environment to become a neutral helium atom.

God and radiometric dating

So, for every one atom of uranium that converts into lead, eight helium atoms are produced. Helium gas is therefore a byproduct of uranium decay. And since helium is a gas, it can leak through the rocks and will eventually escape into the atmosphere. The RATE scientists measured the rate at which helium escapes, and it is fairly high. Therefore, if the rocks were billions of years old, the helium would have had plenty of time to escape, and there would be very little helium in the rocks.

However, the RATE team found that rocks have a great deal of helium within them. In fact, the amount of helium in the rocks is perfectly consistent with their biblical age of a few thousand years!

It is wildly inconsistent with billions of years.

When Genesis talks about “kinds,” those are God's own scientific . that the motivating factor scientists use radiometric dating isn't “to deny God. Does radiometric dating show that rocks are millions of years old? No! God's word unmistakably teaches a young earth and universe (“the. Radiometric Dating and 6, Years — Part One. Article#: Stress-shifting is a Bible teaching that is truly a life-transforming truth. Those believers who work.

But the fact that such helium is present also indicates that a great deal of radioactive decay has happened; a lot of uranium atoms have decayed into lead, producing the helium. At the current half-life of uranium, this would take billions of years. But if it actually took billions of years, then the helium would have escaped the rocks. The only reasonable explanation that fits all the data is that the half-life of uranium was much smaller in the past.

That is, in the past, uranium transformed into lead much faster than it does today. The RATE team found similar evidence for other forms of radioactive decay. Apparently, during the creation week and possibly during the year of the global flood, radioactive decay rates were much faster than they are today. The RATE team also found that the acceleration of radioactive decay was greater for elements with longer half-lives, and less for elements with shorter half-lives.

Read Radiometric Dating from Christian radio ministry Answers with Ken Ham God's word unmistakably teaches a young earth and universe (“the heavens”). Is radiometric dating a reliable method for estimating the age of .. The earth may have had very little c in its atmosphere when God first. Radioactive dating may be one of the big questions looming in your mind. Note too that radioactive dating is something that most people don't .. The Bible declares: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

All radiometric dating methods used on rocks assume that the half-life of the decay has always been what it is today. But we now have compelling evidence that this assumption is false. And since the decay rate was much faster in the past, those who do not compensate for this will end up with age-estimates that are vastly inflated from the true age of the rock.

This of course is exactly what we observe. We already knew that radiometric dating tends to give ages that are much older than the true age.

Now we know why. For whatever reason, many people have the false impression that carbon dating is what secular scientists use to estimate the age of earth rocks at billions of years. Carbon dating is not used on rocks, because rocks do not have much carbon in them.

Choose country

And with a half-life of only years, carbon does not last long enough to give an age estimate if something were truly millions of years old. All the carbon would be gone after one million years.

To estimate the ages of rocks, secular scientists use elements with much longer half-lives, such as uranium, potassium, and rubidium Animals and plants contain abundant carbon.

Carbon dating is therefore used most frequently on animal or plant remains. The method gives an estimation of how long ago the organism died. Read More from Ken Ham. Variety Within Created Kinds Did all species evolve from one common ancestor?

Uniqueness of Man Genesis 1 states that God specially created the first male and female in His own image. Despite some anatomical similarities among all mammals, it is easy to distinguish humans.

Distant Starlight Can stars be millions of light years away if God created them only 6, years ago? We have much to learn, but several astrophysical models can account for this.

Interestingly, the big bang has a major light-travel problem of its own.

1 comments Add your comment below

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *