skip to content »

el-feel.ru

Radioctive dating against evolution

radioctive dating against evolution-8

A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past… from and professor of Geology at the Institute for Creation Research, discovered a radiometric problem in the Grand Canyon−the rocks on top of the canyon wall are measured to be several hundred million years older than the rocks at the base of the canyon−a physical impossibility.

radioctive dating against evolution-84radioctive dating against evolution-77

Science can measure the concentration of elements, but science can only speculate on assumptions regarding the element stability, half-life, and the original concentration at the beginning.Herschel’s “many thousand million years” and Lyle’s uniformitarianism shaped the cornerstone of Darwin’s theory.In the first paragraph of the Introduction in The Origin of Species, Darwin highlighted the centrality of Lyle’s and Herschel’s influence of on his theory: “to throw some light on the origin of species — that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers.” Herschel had used this signature phrase, “that mystery of mysteries,” in a letter to Lyle endorsing his Principles of Geology.Radiometric dating is a process of measuring radioactive isotope decay rates of unstable atoms that loses energy by emitting radiation.The chemical element Argon (Ar) formed from the radioactive isotope Potassium-40 (U) are the most common types of elements studied in rocks for the radiometric dating of the rock.As Scott points out further, radiometric dating can only yield unproven dates since To test the validity of radiometric dating on newly formed rocks, in 1993 Austin submitted newly formed molten rocks recovered from the 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helens volcano to the Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA for dating using the K-Ar method.

While expecting as age of 13 years, the laboratory reported a staggering dating range from 340,000 to 2.8 million years.

“Since there is no way in which these assumptions can be tested,” Scott notes, “there is no sure way (except by divine revelation) of knowing the true age of any geological formation.” What is the chance of verify these assumptions? As Scott explains, “In view of this fact, the highly speculative nature of all methods of geochronometry becomes apparent when one realizes that not one of the above assumptions is valid!

None are provable, or testable, or even reasonable.” “We must remember that the past,” Scott continues, “is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present…

Boltwood’s first rock measurements estimated an age of the Earth at 400 to 2200 million years old.

Since then, other measurements have extended the age of the Earth.

As Scott argues, while “all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the ‘bad’ dates… Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don’t agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.” Scott mentions this, since selectively discarding dates is a common practice within the radiometric dating industry.