Radiometric dating is not accurate

26-Nov-2015 20:11

Some may be discrepancies…some may just need a bit further explanation. First, I'll start by referring you to an extensive article on the young earth creation science website Answers in Genesis, titled I can look in my scientific journals and see apparent discrepancies in dating techniques.

The young earth creationism believer thinks that all we are relying on is the radiometric techniques.This is like the common phrase that Christians like to use when studying the Bible, when we say, "He pulled that out of context." When considering the date of the world, and the universe, you have to consider all the evidence, not just one portion.We take the radiometric dates, along with stratigraphy (I know, dated radiometrically), the specific fossil species in a rock (I know, dated radiometrically) and come up with a date. Because although not perfect, it is the best tool we have.Even looking at geology alone, it is evident from the using a young earth. And, although you can come up with gross errors using radiometric dating, by and large, the millions of dates that have been accomplished lend support to their accuracy, granting, of course, a large margin of error.These "millions" of semi-accurate dates have correlated throughout the stratigraphic layers of the earth. Are they usable for giving a rough estimate of age..Sure, they exist, but are probably in the minority.

Unfortunately, these are the ones that the young earth creationist will single out and attack, because of their assumptions that the techniques are perfect.

Most geologists understand the dating techniques, and accept their limitations. The author gives a very good description of Carbon-14, except the flood part.

Can we rely on the radiometric dates alone...no, we can't.

Geologists know that the dates are not perfect, that's why you will see research articles trying to determine the age of a rock, and there will be ten, twenty, or more samples that were dated.

This is to get the average, or, most accurate date possible, within the margin of error that you allow.

Are there scientists out there that will swear up and down that their dates are completely accurate?