Doubts radiometric dating

(Applies to K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, U-Pb, Sm-Nd, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, and FT). What of the claim that, as analytical tools improve, the validity of isotopic dating is strengthened?

If we point out that uniformitarian geochronologists often don’t publish discrepant dates, are we thereby accusing them of being dishonest?

doubts radiometric dating-59

Is it true that the assumed equilibration of magmatic and atmospheric argon gas is a well-founded assumption?

When uniformitarians claim that this proves that excess argon is infrequent and unimportant, what biased assumption are they tacitly making?

* Shows how “reliability criteria” are used inconsistently, and are even waived when the result fits the ruling theory. ) Scientific Fact or Scientific Folklore: Isotopic dates are unambiguously divisible into “credible” and “non-credible” categories?

* Shows how even low-temperature fluid processes can cause open systems in dates. Reality or Rhetoric: Isotopic-dating results are usually internally consistent?

When apologists of isotopic-dating methods assert that all discrepant isotopic results have a rational geologic explanation that corresponds closely with the known geology of the region, are they speaking a partial truth, a trivial truth, or both?

Does the geologic complexity of Precambrian terrains excuse the discordance of isotopic dates obtained from them?

Is there any basis to the assertion of compromising evangelicals that questioning of such things as isotopic dating and the old earth brings discredit to the Christian faith, and hinders others from accepting the Gospel?

What of the claim that dating results are usually concordant when a rock is dated by more than one dating method?

Even if all isotopic dates did show a local progression in conformity with the Law of Superposition, would one be therefore justified to leap to the conclusion that isotopic-dating methods are therefore validated?

Tags: , ,