How old is the earth based on radiometric dating
If these assumptions that underlie radiometric dating are not true, then the entire theory falls flat, like a chair without its four legs.The second fatal flaw clearly reveals that at least one of those assumptions must actually be wrong because radiometric dating . Helens, we watched rocks being formed in the 1980s, but when sent to a laboratory 10 years later for dating, the 10-year-old rocks returned ages of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
That’s sure putting a lot of faith in something that can’t be tested through direct observation.They instead use selected radioactivity results to confirm what they need to see.As discussed in previous chapters, this viewpoint, being secular, contradicts God’s stated Word in Genesis and even the Ten Commandments, where He wrote with His own hand that He created the heavens, Earth, sea, and all that is in them in six days (Exodus ).Fossil remains are found in sedimentary rock layers.Layers of sediment form when various size particles (e.g., dirt, rocks, and vegetation) accumulate in places such as deserts, rivers, lakes, and the ocean.If that had happened, Darwin’s ideas would have been refuted and abandoned.
Instead, radioactive dating indicates that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old—plenty of time for evolution and natural selection to take place.[i] But as we show here, geologists do not use radioactivity to establish the age of certain rocks.
High school biology books openly acknowledge this necessary connection: Evolution takes a long time. Geologists now use radioactivity to establish the age of certain rocks and fossils.
This kind of data could have shown that the Earth is young.
Trace fossils and the Law of Superposition can only provide the relative age of the rock.
Radiometric dating is far more specific in formation analysis.
In some cases, they turn up still alive today, but these can go unreported.