Creationist arguments against radiometric dating
There is also an exhaustive study of this subject called the (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) Group, a team of six scientists who are investigating the subject in depth, and have published the first of several studies. Carbon-14 dating has limited value for evolution because its half-life is too short.
The method assumes that the production of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere from nitrogen is a process that is in equilibrium, and it is not. Sedimentary rocks normally cannot be dated with radiometric methods (there are a few exceptions) because they do not have crystals that were consolidated at the time the rock was formed.
Leaching of the parent element out of the rock would increase the age of a K-Ar sample.
One way to test this would be to analyze the sample before and after soaking it under pouring water.
Let us critically examine each of these claims and see if they hold up against the science.
While doing so, we will have to learn about how radiometric dating works.
In any event, radiometric dating doesn’t disprove the Bible.
These claims generally land in three different categories: (1) radiometric dating assumes that initial conditions (concentrations of mother and daughter nuclei) are known, (2) radiometric dating assumes that rocks are closed systems and (3) radiometric dating assumes that decay rates are constant.
Most young earth creationists reject all of these points.
As a scientific skeptics, we ask ourselves: is this really the case?
This serves as strong evidence for the reliability of radiometric dating methods. These isotopes differ in the number of neutrons they have in their nuclei.
Those isotopes that are not stable decay into daughter nuclei.
This would reduce the concentration of the potassium ions to the point that it would increase the date of the rock dramatically. Helens rock known to have come from the 1980 eruption (Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal) yielded erroneous dates in the millions of years.