Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 327:
Line 327: + + + + + +
→You Just Gotta Be Kidding Me
::::: There is a logical circularity, and hidden assumptions, in using the earth to date the earth. But you omit them. [[Radiometric dating]] depends on assuming that decay rates have always been constant. But plainly that is false.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)
::::: There is a logical circularity, and hidden assumptions, in using the earth to date the earth. But you omit them. [[Radiometric dating]] depends on assuming that decay rates have always been constant. But plainly that is false.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:03, 29 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: The argument from radiometric dates is flawed for another reason. It assumes that the methodology of radiometric dating is sound. And it is anything but sound. It assumes that the earth is already old, and is therefore circular in its reasoning. It also assumes that the starting composition of rocks is establishable, and that has already been falsified.
:::::: Austin and colleagues, in 1996, submitted samples of dacite from the [[Mount st. Helens]] lava dome to Geochron Laboratories, Inc. for dating. Now bear in mind that Mount St. Helens had erupted a scant ten years earlier. Geochron gave back five different dates for those rocks--dates that varied above and beyond the rated tolerances for those dates--dates that varied from half a million years to two million eight hundred thousand years.
:::::: If a hospital laboratory had made a mistake like that, it would be shut down for its pains. As it is, Geochron later abandoned the [[potassium]]-[[argon]] dating method that had produced the wildly preposterous dates.
:::::: Dr. Austin published his findings in the ''Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal''. But more than that, he and about a dozen of his colleagues formed Project RATE--for '''R'''adioisotopes and the '''A'''ge of '''T'''he '''E'''arth. Those men have developed findings that ought to shock everyone who reads them--findings that destroy all of the uniformitarian assumptions about how old we think rocks are.
:::::: And--funny that someone here should cite the US Geological Survey. By their own admission, the "youngest" rock ever dates had an apparent age of 700,000 years. ''They couldn't reliably date the eruption of [[Mount Vesuvius]] and the destruction of [[Pompeii]]'' did we not have the diary of [[Pliny the Younger]] to work with.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 09:27, 29 January 2008 (EST)