SkipCaptcha
5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 171:
Line 171: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Radiocarbon dating used in Court
: Ed, there is no logical reason to expect physical constants to have remained unchanged over the lifetime of the universe. It took me only about 60 seconds to find one example: [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html "Speed of light may have changed recently."]
: Ed, there is no logical reason to expect physical constants to have remained unchanged over the lifetime of the universe. It took me only about 60 seconds to find one example: [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html "Speed of light may have changed recently."]
:: Let’s do some math.
The Earth has been dated to be about 4.5 billion years old by radiometric dating methods.
To represent young earth creationists, we will assume the best-case scenario with some people who believe in a 200,000-year-old earth..
One gets a percent error of…
|2×105−4.5×109|2×105×100%=|1−2.25×104|×100%= '''2,249,900%''' error.
If we use the more common 6000 years, it isn’t hard to calculate this to be '''74,999,900%''' error.
A person in elementary school doing work on particle physics would probably get less percent error. Such a monumental error is indicative of catastrophic systematic error across the numerous radiometric dating methods to which one might wonder how such a thing has been unseen for so long?
A much more likely example is that radiometric dating does not, in anyway, support young earth creationism. The only instances that can be brought up our notorious instances that abuse the tool or have been known to be misleading [say, the Hugh Miller carbon dating experiment].
If one must abide by the young earth creationist ideology, one must in turn completely neglect practically the entirety of geology and the processes they study, a significant portion of biology which encapsulates evolutionary biology, and the entirety of cosmology and likely in turn a lot of astronomy. How such an ideology can claim itself in agreement with observational science yet show complete apathy towards these three fields is astounding, to say the least. And it should be a huge warning sign of what the science actually says on the issue.