Young earth radiometric dating

06-Sep-2019 11:19

Most radiometric arguments were said to favor the 2.6 MY date, but the paleontological arguments favored the 1.8 MY date-(that is where the skull would best fit evolutionary theory).

young earth radiometric dating-17young earth radiometric dating-72young earth radiometric dating-6young earth radiometric dating-6

Because mammal bones had been found below this stratum, they said these dates were obviously in error because of “the possible presence of extraneous argon derived from inclusions of pre-existing rocks.” Even though the rock looked good, anything older than 5 MY was obviously wrong in view of their knowledge of the “sequence of evolutionary development.” Meanwhile a team from the University of California at Berkeley, led by G. Curtis, analyzed several KBS pumice rocks and found some that were around 1.6 MY and some that were about 1.8 MY.Certainly the majority of scientists accept radiometric dating.And yet, there is really no scientific reason proving that radiometric dating is correct, and a number of evidences showing that it doesn’t work. We’ll find that faith in materialism, and rejection of any supernatural activity, is the foundation stone of radiometric analysis, even before any measurements are made.Reasons given usually involved detrital intrusion, leakage or leaching of some of the isotopes in the sample, and sometimes the initial isotopic content of the sample.For K-Ar dates, it’s easy to blame argon loss if the reported age is too short, or argon absorption if it’s too long.

Because mammal bones had been found below this stratum, they said these dates were obviously in error because of “the possible presence of extraneous argon derived from inclusions of pre-existing rocks.” Even though the rock looked good, anything older than 5 MY was obviously wrong in view of their knowledge of the “sequence of evolutionary development.” Meanwhile a team from the University of California at Berkeley, led by G. Curtis, analyzed several KBS pumice rocks and found some that were around 1.6 MY and some that were about 1.8 MY.

Certainly the majority of scientists accept radiometric dating.

And yet, there is really no scientific reason proving that radiometric dating is correct, and a number of evidences showing that it doesn’t work. We’ll find that faith in materialism, and rejection of any supernatural activity, is the foundation stone of radiometric analysis, even before any measurements are made.

Reasons given usually involved detrital intrusion, leakage or leaching of some of the isotopes in the sample, and sometimes the initial isotopic content of the sample.

For K-Ar dates, it’s easy to blame argon loss if the reported age is too short, or argon absorption if it’s too long.

Between 19 several teams made a number of radiometric measurements, and the results clustered around three ages-1.8 MY, 2.4 MY, and 2.6 MY.