antelope_sniper,
We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing.
Here's the
scientific problem with your radiometric dating. One has to assume how much parent product there was at the begging. One has to assume there either was no daughter product or how much was there if they make that assumption. They have to assume there has been no contamination or leaching of the parent or daughter product for the multiple millions or billions of years.
Another problem. I read about a rock from the bottom of Grand Canyon that was dated using four dating methods. There was a billion years between the youngest and the oldest date of the very
same rock
!Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past.
There are lots of evolutionists who also question the dating system.
Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived?
Legal historical evidence is different form scientific speculation and hopefulness. There were witnesses who wrote about the person and events. Prior to written records all "history" is a hopeful guess.
Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records.
Exactly
! When we date rocks of known ages we always get a wrong answer
! It's always rocks of unknown ages when we get to claim extravagant ages.
There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
Appealing to dendrochronology works better for the creationists than for the evolutionists. Consider the afore mentioned petrified forest of Yellow Stone and in fact
ALL everywhere tested in the world.
All have less than 1,700 growth rings. Even redwoods and brislecone pine, which live for thousands of years; and any other tree checked. What's the significance? Noah's Flood happened 1, 656 years after God's creation
!Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth.
Base on the above flawed radiometric dating system. Let's consider the salt in the ocean. How long would it take to get the present amount if you started with distilled water, which no one assumes? Forty or fifty million years. That doesn't leave room for evolution's required hundreds of million of years. If the ocean was really three billions years old it would be so full of salts and other chemicals no life could exist.
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes.
And evolutionists used the above flawed assumptions for sixty years. A real problem with claiming sixty years as though it is a long time, consider Carl's Bad Caverns. There used to be a sign tell visitors it was a couple hundred millions years old. The as education imcreased it was revised to several million years, and now the sign is gone because it matches Creationist predictions
! AnD while were at it where's the sign at yellow Stone that told visitors the petrified forest was twenty-seven million years old. O yea. They discovered the time frame based on the tree rings supported Noah's Flood.
This is enough for the serious student to get the idea evolution is a bankrupt idea. Just as one Ph.D astrophysicist said, "Evolution is a superstition with absolutely zero supporting evidence."
