The rock walls were slippery and steep at points, and some people came in their dress shoes straight from the conference that brought them together. Let me see that. A brightly painted sign in the state park explained that million years ago these ancient creatures lived at the bottom of a warm, shallow sea during the Ordovician period. But none of these geologists believed it. As young-earth creationists, they think the earth is about 8, years old, give or take a few thousand years. Creationist ideas about geology tend to appeal to overly zealous amateurs, but this was a gathering of elites, with an impressive wall of diplomas among them Harvard, U. They had spent years studying the geologic timetable, but they remained nevertheless deeply committed to a different version of history. John Whitmore, a geologist from nearby Cedarville University who organized the field trip, stood in the middle of the fossil bed and summarized it for his son. Whitmore, who was wearing a suede cowboy hat, answered in a cowboy manner — laconic but certain.
Refuting “Radiometric Dating Methods Makes Untenable Assumptions!”
When asked to imagine the biggest, deepest, longest canyon one can imagine, an image of the Grand Canyon will often pop into a person’s mind. The Grand Canyon is a site of almost unfathomable grandeur, which inspires awe in anyone who sees it. Lately, however, the canyon has also inspired controversy, specifically over its origins.
It is generally held by the scientific community that the Grand Canyon formed by the slow erosion of the Colorado River over millions of years. Steve Austin, however, has proposed an entirely different theory on the age and formation of the canyon and wrote a book explaining his theories titled Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Austin believes that the canyon was formed extremely rapidly during the period immediately following the global flood of Noah in the biblical book of Genesis.
Recently Bill Nye and Ken Ham had a debate regarding the validity of evolution and creationism. This debate mixed with the recent discovery of.
A quick flash to a chart during the debate purportedly showing so, and far too much to read in a second, and then on to somethig else. Gish Gallop springs to my mischevious mind. So did Ham have a point that a piece of year old timber was found in a rock purportedly 45, years old? My sympathies lie completely with the currently accepted scientific methods of dating rocks, the Earth, the universe … but, and it is a discussion, is there room for doubt?
Without the reference to the alleged finding, it is impossible to be specific. Report abuse. Rocks are usually millions of years old… unless we are talking about lava rocks…. Ken Ham seems to be referring to a geologist named Andrew A. Snelling, who also happens to be a young earth creationist. He posted an article on the Institute for Creation Sciences on this topic.
Radiometric dating revealed the wood was only about 45 years old. His argument is of course that this does not make sense. In essence, he is arguing that radiometric dating is bullshit and hence we should accept that young earth creationism is true. If this was truly of such significance as he claims I think it would gather a lot more interest.
Teaching about Radiometric Dating
The age of the earth is a central issue in creation -evolution discussions, because a young earth would not permit enough time for evolution to occur, and an old earth would contradict a literal reading of the Bible account of creation. The belief in an old earth is based on conventional dates for geological periods, which are in the hundreds of millions of years range, and are obtained by isotopic dating methods. Standard isotopic radiometric dating techniques typically yield such dates on fossil-bearing strata.
The textbooks speak of the radiometric dating techniques, and the dates Recent research by a team of creation scientists known as the RATE.
In my psychology courses, I cover evolutionary psychology. I am sometimes asked why I do not mention creation science, as an alternative. I have also been asked why the text books I use. This interactive web site has been created to address these questions. Is creationism based on religious beliefs or scientific facts? The text author says evolution is accepted as fact There are some people who say Darwin is wrong, might they be correct? What parts of the theory of evolution are considered fact?
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?
Chapter 9. White, In order to believe the earth is more no more than years old requires the abandonment of all known geological dating methods.
A very common claim of young earth creationists in trying to reject the evidence for an old earth is to loudly proclaim that radiometric dating.
See this page in: Hungarian , Russian , Spanish. P eople who ask about carbon 14 C dating usually want to know about the radiometric  dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.
Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering —the reason Jesus came into the world See Six Days? Christians , by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said,. This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
The Age of the Earth
Jul 7. Posted by Paul Braterman. Can we trust radiocarbon dating? After all, it makes the same range of assumptions as other radiometric dating methods, and then some. Other methods benefit from internal checks or duplications, which in the case of radiocarbon dating are generally absent. There are numerous cases where it appears to give absurdly old ages for young material, while apparent ages of a few tens of thousands of years are regularly reported for material known on other evidence to be millions of years old.
book ‘Studies in Flood Geology.’ While scientific creationists have done individual studies on the isotropic dating methods in recent years, no one has performed.
Slideshows Videos Audio. Here of some of the well-tested methods of dating used in the study of early humans: Potassium-argon dating , Argon-argon dating , Carbon or Radiocarbon , and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time.
Thermo-luminescence , Optically stimulated luminescence , and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods.
For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate. Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Page last updated: September 14,
Creation 101: Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth
Lisle Oct 27, Geology , Origins , Physics. We are told that scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to measure the age of rocks. We are also told that this method very reliably and consistently yields ages of millions to billions of years, thereby establishing beyond question that the earth is immensely old — a concept known as deep time. This apparently contradicts the biblical record in which we read that God created in six days, with Adam being made on the sixth day.
Sometimes creationists attack other scientific concepts, like the Big Bang cosmological model or methods of scientific dating.
The chronological figures related to genealogies in Scripture add up to approximately 6, years since the creation of described in Genesis. Many creationists consider these figures to be relatively complete, and thus the Earth is considered to be about 6, to perhaps as much as 10, years old. Biblical scholars do not agree on whether the Bible indicates that the planet Earth was created at the beginning of creation week or if it was already present as a lifeless, wet and dark planet here prior to creation week.
The Bible does not give an age for the Earth, nor is any theological point drawn from the age of the Earth, so it may not be as important as some of the other issues. Most scientists believe the Earth is about 4. This figure is based on radiometric dating. Some creationists have attempted to reconcile this figure with the creation in Genesis by proposing that the rocky, lifeless planet was created long ago perhaps 4.
Other creationists hold that the planet itself was created during creation week, perhaps early in the first day of creation.
Is more precise radiocarbon dating methods – rich woman looking for firewood, either within those rocks are unstable isotopes. Debunking the age. If you.
As young-earth creationists, they think the earth is about 8, years old, who have used various radiometric-dating methods to establish that.
EN Articles. Atheism Defined and Explained. Movement Journal. ATHEISM – The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense? Daily Mail Archbishop of Canterbury Soviet revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin Oxford university Creation Research Society.