An Essay on Radiometric Dating. Radiometric dating methods are the strongest direct evidence that geologists have for the age of the Earth. All these methods point to Earth being very, very old — several billions of years old. Young-Earth creationists — that is, creationists who believe that Earth is no more than 10, years old — are fond of attacking radiometric dating methods as being full of inaccuracies and riddled with sources of error. When I first became interested in the creation-evolution debate, in late , I looked around for sources that clearly and simply explained what radiometric dating is and why young-Earth creationists are driven to discredit it. I found several good sources, but none that seemed both complete enough to stand alone and simple enough for a non-geologist to understand them. Thus this essay, which is my attempt at producing such a source. Theory of Radiometric Dating. Common Methods of Radiometric Dating. Possible Sources of Error.
Age of the Universe
Do you have an item you would like to have dated? For Research Professionals Please scroll down on this page for links to computer programs. SIRI update.
origins compared to Genesis. One such site for this kind of exchange is Talk Origins, which claims to sponsor Radiometric Dating Methods- in Detail.
Other Links:. Former creationist Glenn Morton examines several famous young-earth creationist arguments and provides data to illustrate their flaws. A Radiometric Dating Resource List. Tim Thompson has collected a large set of links to web pages that discuss radiometric dating techniques and the age of the earth controversy. This value is derived from several different lines of evidence. Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth.
There is evidence that energy from the Earth’s accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface. The oldest rocks which have been found so far on the Earth date to about 3. Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.
Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3. While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it. This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead Pb, Pb, and either Pb or Pb
The Age of the Earth
By Kirk Reynolds. The global flood as described in the Bible has been attacked by Christians as well as non-Christians. Those Christians who do not hold to a literal reading of Genesis are willing to believe in the old age of the earth as proposed by evolution. This belief states that the universe came into existence approximately 12 billion years ago through the Big Bang.
There are several theories of creation based on this evolutionary timeline, such as Progressive Creation, Gap Theory, Framework Hypothesis, and Theistic Evolution. None of these theories allow for the literal six-day creation as plainly contained in the Bible.
Are you looking for an overview of the radiocarbon method? the premises or theological implications of dating methods, since s and other Usenet.
Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research ICR have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years.
They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon C dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. Answer: Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen N into carbon C or radiocarbon.
Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C into their bodies along with other carbon isotopes. When the organisms die, they stop incorporating new C, and the old C starts to decay back into N by emitting beta particles. The older an organism’s remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate.
C14-L on [email protected]
Voting for the RationalMedia Foundation board of trustees election is underway! The evidence against a recent creation is overwhelming. This article collects evidences that place a lower limit on the age of the Universe beyond the 6, to 10, years asserted by most Young Earth creationists YECs and the literalist Ussher chronology. All of this evidence supports deep time : the idea, considered credible by scientists since the early s, that the Earth and the Universe is millions [note 1] or billions of years old.
Scientists use certain elements present in a certain abundance to calculate an approximate age for rocks. One of the decay ratios used is Uranium decaying through a series of alpha and beta decays to Lead. The number in superscript preceding the element name indicates the atomic mass, the sum of its protons and neutrons. Alpha decay releases a Helium nucleus two protons and two neutrons from the parent atom to create two atoms: the released Helium and a daughter product that has an atomic number two less than the original and an atomic mass four less than the original.
Using the amount of the remaining Uranium, the amount of Lead that has built up, and the original amount of Lead which is not created by any known decay process, scientists can calculate an approximate age based on the decay rate of Uranium and the ratios of Uranium to Lead and Lead to Lead. Some creationists claim that there is too much helium in Earth’s crust for the earth to be any more than two million years old Sarfati, If Earth has existed for billions of years, there should be little helium left in deeper rocks as a result of radioactive alpha decay.
Radiocarbon Dating & Calibration
Geologic Time Scale! An annotated link list. Early Geologists Tackle History’s Mysteries. Time and Geology. Life on Earth: What do Fossils Reveal?
Chapter Summaries. The Fact of Evolution? The fossil record is often cited as proof that Evolution has drastically changed species over very long time intervals. The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.
Although at one time, paleontologists seemed willing to sweep massive gaps in the fossil record under the rug, this is no longer the case. For example, this quote from the Harvard University Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has been very widely distributed:. T he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. This leads one to wonder what the truth of the fossil record is.
Evidence against a recent creation
The purpose of this index is to list all the claims of young earth creationists, and provide rebuttals to those claims. Although the idea for this index came from the TalkOrigins. Many arguments will have additional arguments against the young earth claims which do not appear on the Talk Origins site. In addition, some arguments used on the Talk Origins site will not be used here. This list will also add many arguments not addressed in the Talk Origins listings, and links will be added to other websites of interest, giving the reader more opportunity to research the topic.
Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscience , a form of creationism presented without obvious Biblical language but with the claim that special creation and flood geology based on the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis have validity as science. Historians,  philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.
Creation science began in the s, as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution. The creation science texts and curricula that first emerged in the s focused upon concepts derived from a literal interpretation of the Bible and were overtly religious in nature, most notably linking Noah’s flood in the Biblical Genesis account to the geological and fossil record. These works attracted little notice beyond the schools and congregations of conservative fundamental and Evangelical Christians until the s, when its followers challenged the teaching of evolution in the public schools and other venues in the United States, bringing it to the attention of the public-at-large and the scientific community.
Many school boards and lawmakers were persuaded to include the teaching of creation science alongside evolution in the science curriculum. The ruling in McLean v. Arkansas found that creation science fails to meet the essential characteristics of science and that its chief intent is to advance a particular religious view.
EARLY MAN AND HOMININ DATING TECHNIQUES
Roger C. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. First edition ; revised version
(For example, all dating methods for the age of the Earth agree on a “How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?”(s).
The Rise of Mammals This diagram shows the enormous increase in the variety of mammals since the Cretaceous period. Biology and Evolutionary Theory This collection of articles and essays offers scientific responses to the many questions and rebuttals that have appeared in Talk. Origins, a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins.
Hosted by Talk. The page is hosted by a knowledgeable “guide,” who screens content available on the Web for relevance and quality. Hosted by About. Facts and Fallacies This volume contains proceedings of the “Evolution!
To browse Academia. Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Download Free PDF. Response to Some Claims in ‘Fallacies in Evolution’.
A simple, fast implementation of the Index of Creationist Claims is yours, free! Contents include sourced rebuttals to Creationist claims about.
Others had tried. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of evidence the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track dating and more that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place. It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.
Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay process was wrong Wieland It marks a move away from reliance on ‘appearance of age’ and the arguments of creationists like John Woodmoreappe Plaisted , who asserted that radioisotope dates are the result of filtering essentially random numbers through the institutional biases of science.
These young-Earth creationists now argue that radioisotope decay has actually occurred, can be measured accurately, and that it would require billions of years at present rates to account for the current condition of the Earth. The scientific community has been making those very arguments for decades. The RATE team, however, because of their unshakable Biblical faith in a 6, year old Earth, rejects uniformitarianism Humphreys and argues that the rate of decay was greatly accelerated during the first two days of Creation Week and during the year-long Flood of Noah DeYoung This paper examines the evidence RATE cites for believing that decay has been accelerated, the proposed mechanisms for that acceleration, and several difficulties with the theory.
The RATE group identified four separate pieces of evidence for the acceleration of radioisotope decay: 1 helium accumulation in zircon crystals, 2 the existence of polonium halos, 3 isotope discordance, and 4 the presence of 14 C in diamonds Vardiman et al. Zircon crystals contain high quantities of uranium, which produces helium during its decay process. This helium, being a noble gas, should normally be able to escape the crystal more quickly than it would be produced by uranium decay at the present rate; this is borne out by diffusion measurements conducted by RATE.
Yet helium has somehow accumulated in these zircon crystals.