Radiometric dating

And, of course, the reported error ignores the huge uncertainties in the Creationist physicists point to several lines of evidence that decay rates have been faster in the past, and propose a pulse of accelerated decay during Creation Week, and possibly a smaller pulse during the Flood year. He may suggest that some of the chemicals in the rock had been disturbed by groundwater or weathering.What would our geologist think if the date from the lab were less than 30 million years, say 10.1 ± 1.8 million years? Or he may decide that the rock had been affected by a localized heating event—one strong enough to disturb the chemicals, but not strong enough to be visible in the field.

Here he can see that some curved sedimentary rocks have been cut vertically by a sheet of volcanic rock called a dyke.

’ In fact, there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’ radiometric dating results.

Someone may ask, ‘Why do geologists still use radiometric dating?

Let us imagine that the date reported by the lab was 150.7 ± 2.8 million years.

Our geologist would be very happy with this result.

Leave a Reply