Isochron dating site 100 charge dating america no
However, not all meteorites have the same uraniumthorium- lead isotopic composition, so why should the isotopic composition of these particular meteorites be considered to be the ‘correct’ composition for the earth at its origin rather than some other composition found in other meteorites?Furthermore, even if today’s scientists believe they have the methods, for example graphical and mathematical, for determining how much of the daughter isotope might have been present either at the origin of the earth or the origin of the rock being dated, no one can ever be sure that these ‘answers’ are correct, because there was no scientist present at the beginning to observe those initial conditions, even though the scientists’ calculations may be extremely logical.Furthermore, by interpretation of these graphs they often claim to be able to quantify the loss or gain and thus overcome this difficulty to still ‘read’ the radioactive ‘clock’.However, once again this interpretation to overcome this problem of the invalidated closed-system assumption cannot be proved, but is merely assumed to be correct because it makes the radioactive ‘clock’ work.The final assumption is, of course, that the radioactive decay rates have remained constant.However, once again, this assumption can in no way be proved, because there were no human observers present right throughout the earth’s history to be constantly measuring the radioactive decay rates and to have recorded them.The big surprise is that the attack has come from an evolutionary geologist and has been published in a secular scientific journal! First, let’ s find out how radioactive dating methods are supposed to work.
So slick and convincing are the presentations of results, particularly in glossy media and museum propaganda, that no one even bothers to question how these dating methods work, what assumptions are involved, and how reliable they are. The answers are not only instructive, but demolish the evolutionary geologist’s case for a 4.5-billion-year old earth.This in turn allows the evidence for a young earth and universe1 to ‘speak’ more loudly in support of the scriptural chronology of a 6,000-7,000 year age, which of course leaves no time for any ‘big bang’ and ‘molecules-to-man’ evolutionary scenarios.Recently, the radioactive dating method which geologists (and physicists) have considered to be perhaps the most reliable has come under heavy ‘fire’.To achieve stability, some ‘particles’ are ejected from the atoms, and these moving ‘particles’ constitute the radioactivity measured by Geiger counters and the like.The end result is stable atoms of the ‘daughter’ elements lead, argon, and strontium respectively.
Indeed, the evidence indicates the very opposite, that is, that these systems have been open to all sorts of external influences.