Tags: Syracuse ny free phone sexts dating listnepal dating sitevideodatingtips comSex free chats without registrationdating script reviewdating romanian women tipsSubbmisive sex chat logschristian dating clubs usa
These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates.
These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains.
For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc.
Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? He said, This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago.
It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as: There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older “ages.” Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years.
Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating, points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.When a “date” differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result.The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems.Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Noah's Flood…, How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places? ), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully.That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are.Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently.So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.Obviously, this works only for things which were once living.It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.The rate of decay of N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years).