In "Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools," Duane Gish suggests Creationist alternatives to radiometric dating, specifically those taking into account:"the amount of helium in the earth's atmosphere produced by radioactive decay of uranium and thorium, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the pressure of oil in petroleum deposits, the presence in rocks of pleochroic haloes of very short-lived radioisotopes, the rate of cooling of the earth (taking into account heat produced by the decay of radioactive substances), the Poynting-Robertson effect, the lifetime of comets, and the time required for clusters of galaxies to disperse."
Are these factors really being ignored by Evolutionists?
And if so, why doesn't anyone make instruments taking these factors into account?
Would they really register significantly different results?
2007-11-10
15:10:53
·
6 answers
·
asked by
suhwahaksaeng
7
in
Earth Sciences & Geology