Creationist arguments against radiometric dating

Rated 4.71/5 based on 867 customer reviews

A very common claim of young earth creationists in trying to reject the evidence for an old earth is to loudly proclaim that radiometric dating methods “makes assumptions” and that these “assumptions” are somehow fatally flawed or not supported by evidence.

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.

Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is.Declaring something to be a fact can be fallacious, as it's technically impossible to provide the complete and total certainty that it requires, but it can be a useful rhetorical flourish.The difference is evidence; evolution has plenty, enough to say with an almost-certain level of confidence that the basic idea proposed by evolution is correct, while creationists stop at the claim itself and rely on making easily refuted attacks on evolution.Another possibility is (as in the case of the potassium - argon - K-Ar method) that because the daughter element is gaseous, it would escape from the rock when the rock was molten.Once the rock cooled, the gaseous daughter would be trapped in the rocks crystal structure and could no longer escape.

Leave a Reply