What do evolutionists say to disprove dating methods?

Question

http://icr.org/article/114/

The new experiments show an age of only 6000 years.

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

http://icr.org/article/1842/

The scientific studies that are done in an attempt to prove the Earth is billions of years old are biased towards evolution.
The studies referenced in this question are to prove the young age of the Earth.
How can you be free of bias? You can't. There will always be bias. The results weren't altered as a result of the bias. Bias influenced the study to be done.

Answer 1

Lol "God drastically speeded (sic.) up decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the Genesis Flood and other brief periods in the earth's short history." Do you know how much heat that would produce? bye-bye Earth.... but then I guess God did something else to prevent that happening....

That decay-rates haven't been sped up at any point is easily demonstrated by the fact that there are many many different radiometric methods used to date rocks, using different isotope series with different, experimentally-determined, LOGARITHMIC decay rates. Think about it. Did God speed up the decay rates of each series (and each step in each series) DIFFERENTLY so that, in the modern-day, whenever a rock was tested by multiple methods, the answers would converge on the same ancient age?? What a trickster.

Anyway, this very poorly substantiated, unverified and unscientific propaganda article, aimed at the ignorant, is easily refuted (not that it even deserves consideration, making a BIG assumption here that its very small number of unsubstantiated results are reliable) by the fact that there are other sources of helium (which, IF as he conveniently assumes without any supporting information, can so easily diffuse outside the deeply-buried, highly pressurized crystal, can certainly also easily diffuse INSIDE the zircon cystal), other than uranium/thorium decay inside the crystal. Helium is mined in some areas.

Which brings me to another point, the vast majority of geologists don't care about evolution, they are using geological science and ages for other things like, oh you know finding commercial resources, a multi-billion dollar, world wide industry.

But I realize I am wasting my time, there is just no helping head-in-the-sand conspiracy-theory nutters.

Answer 2

ICR is a joke, If one reads the original artical this was supposedly based on on sees the following:

At http://www.icr.org/research/jb/debatehighlights.html John Baumgardner, Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, attempts to show that various geologic time clocks disagree with radiologic time clocks. First he cites:

R. V. Gentry, G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment", Geophysical Research Letters, 9, 1129-1130, 1982. and states that

Amazingly, most of the radiogenic helium from this decay process is also still present within these crystals that are typically only a few micrometers across. However, based on experimentally measured helium diffusion rates, the zircon helium content implies a time span of only a few thousand years since the majority of the nuclear decay occurred.
The table below shows data from five of the seven depths looked at by the cited article. The original authors wrote that at two lowest depths, which are not listed below, it was questionable whether the small amount of helium (He) they measured was from the samples or from contamination.

Only at the two shallowest and coolest depths is most of the helium still present, and further, the authors assumed that it would all be there for the surface. They did not expect any of the helium to escape under those circumstances.

Depth of sample temperature measured/theoretical
(meters) (°C) helium
surface 20 1
960 105 .58
2170 151 .27
2900 197 .17
3501 239 .012

"Theoretical" is the amount of helium that would be there if there was no loss of helium due to diffusion. They measured the helium by heating the crystals in steps to 400 °C then to 600 °C then to 800 °C. They did not get any significant helium until they went to 600 °C, further indicating that the ability of He to escape through the crystal lattice is highly temperature dependent.

A look at the cited article also shows that what the authors describe as "small" crystals are 40-50, not "a few", micrometers across. And finally the alleged "experimentally measured helium diffusion rates" are not mentioned in the cited article and no separate citation is given by Baumgardner.

So apparently the ICR article is either lying or intentionally misrepresenting the original article.

Answer 3

I think you need to read up on false prophets. You've latched onto one, big time. Flee his lies.

"Exciting new developments in RATE projects are confirming our basic hypothesis: that God drastically speeded up decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the Genesis Flood and other brief periods in the earth's short history."

This is just a way of saying we're proving the world is old and changing the numbers to say it's young. Altering a physical constant to make the data fit is just another term for lying. You are just propagating a lie.

Answer 4

The information provided by your website is not scientifically accepted by the majority of the scientific community. There are numerous rebuttal articles out on this topic. I'll list a few.

Answer 5

dating methods have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
Your article is from "The Institute for Creation Research"...try reading research done by someone that does NOT have such a HUGE bias. I would not even call this report scientific in any way. They are ONLY looking at things that MIGHT support their viewpoint. This is NOT science, this is PROPAGANDA.

Answer 6

Wow. This I had not heard. I know how rocks and fossils are dated, and knew that the dates we are given were in the realm of comedy. This not only rejects the old dates, but actually gives tangible data to support a younger earth. Evolution already needed much more time than it had, now it is way short. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Answer 7

a million. - the full premise is fake by way of fact evolution isn't in accordance with possibility. 2. - back, evolution isn't in accordance with possibility, so objection 2 is invalid, being in accordance with a pretend impact of what evolution is. 3. - This declare is only flat out fake. There are 1000's of reported examples of this occurring. additionally, evolution isn't actual based on mutations increasing genetic innovations besides. it might take place slower devoid of it, yet no longer under no circumstances. 4. - back, this declare is fake. thousands and thousands have been got here upon. There are miles and miles of warehouses crammed from suitable to backside with transitional fossils. 5. - This declare is likewise patently untrue. 6. - This declare is in accordance with a gross fake impact of dating tactics. Isotopes would be gained and lost by employing the rock by way of fact it formed. which will have not any result on the skill as much as now a rock. 7. - This declare is likewise fake. you will locate no biology textbook or get right of entry to on evolution in any encyclopedia in the international that asserts evolution teaches that existence got here from no longer something. 8. - in accordance with a gross fake impact of rules of entropy. in the beginning, the guidelines of entropy persist with only to a theoretical "closed gadget" - a gadget wherein no mild, count, or skill of any style enters or escapes the gadget. No such gadget bodily exists. The Earth, as an occasion, recieves solar oftentimes from devoid of. as nicely, the guidelines of entropy state that the full entropy of the full gadget will strengthen. In different words, order would strengthen in one section, as long because it decreases extra in yet another section. 9. - Evolutionists admit no such element. What they do admit is that the probabilities of a random mutation at any supply element are low. besides the fact that, if the probabilities are high a million in a million (a liberal estimate), and a species produces 50 billion offspring, and the mutation is beneficial to survival, it is going to unfold like wildfire. edit - no, evolution would not say it got here from no longer something, and that i project you to offer one single textbook or encyclopedia get right of entry to on evolution which says "from no longer something".

Answer 8

Look at what the abstract says "God sped up the decay rates at certain times". Does that sound like science to you?

Answer 9

Institute for Creation Research? Hahaha... nice unbiased source...

Answer 10

You're right. There is always bias.