Creationist claims radiometric dating Where can i get free credits for sign up in adult webcam site
A few years ago on Mount Saint Helens, scientists dated the only decades-old rock formed by the volcano's explosion in 1980 and got millions of years.This is because daughter elements were in the original sample when the rock was formed at the explosion of the volcano.We also have tons of evidence I have already gone over for catastrophism.If water or any other force occurred that could have made the rock move around and rub on other substances, it is very likely for daughter elements to be added to the rock.Lots of daughter atoms in the sample have come from outside sources, and3. While currently, the decay rates are stable and are not affected by outside conditions, a Creation scientist group has found evidence that the decay rate has been faster in the past for some elements."Recent research by a creation science group known as RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) has produced evidence of accelerated rates of decay at some point (or points) in the past....It is not crazy for a Creationist to believe God could have intervened in the rates of decay. In addition, we have seen the abounding evidence for a young earth and Biblical accounts such as a Flood, so in my opinion, it would be foolish to write off a God intervening into His Creation just because He doesn't fit into science.
Another significant method to note is Carbon-14 dating.
Scientists call them parent elements and daughter elements--the parent element will decay into the daughter element. Whether the current rate of decay has always been the same, or if it has been faster or slower in the past.
Now, there are three assumptions having to do with the parent-to-daughter element decay rate, which cannot be proven as accurate, as we have not been in the past and can not observe it as we can the present. Now that we have some knowledge of how the methods work and the assumptions they are based on, we can look at both Evolution and Creation individually and see which theory the radiometric dating system works best with.
Or why some Christians insist on believing in Creation when science claims to have proven it wrong? Introduction Last time I showed you how the geologic column wasn't even close to being hard evidence for Evolution, and now we will be diving into another one of the most quoted evidence for Evolution--the dating methods.
One huge misunderstanding concerning radiometric dating is that the results are infallible. Well, there are many dating methods, but the one most commonly used is radiometric dating.
Evolution Evolutionists use the three unprovable assumptions to get the dates they do, which are the following: 1.