5 assumptions of radiometric dating slowdating com
Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years).There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution.Both uranium and lead, for example, are extremely water soluble. Yet, what is it that causes radioactive decay in the first place?And when have you ever heard an evolutionist ask this question?We have seen that the whole radiometric basis of dating rocks and fossils is a towering house of cards.Our next and final witness against the reliability of radiometric dating is Jay Hall, M.
Stansfield is essentially saying here, “I acknowledge the extreme unreliability of radiometric dating to the tune of hundreds of millions of years but I choose to have faith in it, anyway.” We have seen in previous articles that the unreliability of radiometric dating actually extends to billions of years, and this is all a highly selective process anyway in which the scientists discard more results than they accept! Dudley: “…induced changes in disintegration rates of 14 radionuclides [have been investigated], including C-14, Co-60, and Cs-137.
There is much, much more that could be cited in this regard.
Henry Morris has also compiled a long list of such quotations from evolutionists in his book, .
59 And Again: “Paul Renne et al wrote an interesting paper in Science, ‘Absolute Ages Aren’t Exactly.’ There are significant uncertainties in the decay rates of various isotopes.
In fact, geochronologists and nuclear physicists often use different decay rates.”—pg.
According to a Wikipedia article: “Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the Sun.