2007-02-07 21:52:43 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
They don't and they can't. I don't know where you got that information, but it's incorrect. If creationists knew more and were right then they would be scientists themselves and people would take them seriously.
2007-02-07 21:56:29 · answer #1 · answered by eastchic2001 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because all anti-science propagandists are about is spreading pseudo-scientific sounding lies to con those who don't know they are lying. For example, to take each paragraph in the answer above:
1) Deliberate deception. A 1981(!!) out-of-context quote-mine, devoid of all supporting evidence, from ONE person in an editorial (an opinion which was overwhelmingly proved wrong by the way). Pure immoral propaganda.
2) No. For starters, there are way-up indicators in sedimentary rocks. I won't even go on. And the bit about the Grand Canyon is a bald-faced lie.
3) What is the relevance of Ur/Ur dating here? Uranium-lead radiometric dating is used to date the Earth. And by the way, there are many different radiometric dating techniques, each using a different, experimentally-determined, LOGARITHMIC isotope decay series, and each curve always converges on the same ages.
Science has absolutely NO problem with radiometric dating.
2007-02-08 00:48:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious ... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted." (Lee, R. E., Radiocarbon, "Ages in Error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1981, vol. 19, No. 3, p. 9)
All forms of isochron dating "Assume" that the source of the rock or rocks contained unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element, along with some amount of the parent nuclide.
Relative dating, telling that one layer of rock is older than another and ASSUMING the lower layers are older. Except in the Grand Canyon where other dating techniques showed top layers to be older?
In theory, the 234U/238U technique can be useful in dating samples between about 10,000 and 2 million years Before Present (BP), or up to about eight times the half-life of 234U. As such, it provides a useful bridge in radiometric dating techniques between the ranges of 230Th/238U (accurate up to ca. 450,000 years) and U-Pb dating (accurate up to the age of the solar system, but problematic on samples younger than about 2 million years).
This is why Creationists have problems with scientific dating techniques. Science has a problem with them
2007-02-07 22:41:14 · answer #3 · answered by mark g 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What's more, signalling their wider ignorance, they only ever go on about carbon dating, which isn't even any use for dating the earth. Rocks are dated by measuring the rate of decay between uranium and lead isotopes, among others. And they reliably and consistently give dates for the oldest rocks of 4.4 billion years.
Unless Creationists would like to explain how uranium isotopes decay at a non-constant rate, in defiance of EVERY scientific observation ever made?
2007-02-07 22:00:56 · answer #4 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because they are fundamentally dishonest. Carbon isotopes have a relatively short half life and samples are easily contaminated, so it is easier to attack radioactive dating techniques by misapplying examples of carbon dating than by using examples of potassium/argon or uranium/lead radioactive dating.
2007-02-07 22:24:10 · answer #5 · answered by Dendronbat Crocoduck 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It only takes a bit of study to find that the concept of carbon dating is based on two fallacies and therefore cannot be used accurately to depict dates. The problem isn't that carbon dating is inherently erroneous though, it's that man is searching franctically to find the missing link in their theory that God doesn't exist, which is primarily based on believing a lie so any lie that will help to prove the theory will do.
2007-02-07 22:10:35 · answer #6 · answered by hisgloryisgreat 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They have faith so they don't need facts I guess.
Well, gotta go bury some more fake "dinosaur bones" and "fossils" to help prop up that whole "science" thing
2007-02-07 21:59:33 · answer #7 · answered by slipstreamer 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
creationists are delusional
2007-02-07 21:57:27 · answer #8 · answered by nicewknd 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋