Why do Creationists not believe evidence from radioactive dating?

Question

I suppose the first reason would be that it flies in the face of Creationists' belief that the earth is only 6000 years old. But is there a, you know, valid reason? Because the scientific evidence for a 4.6-billion-year-old earth is pretty overwhelming.

I've found a really great link that explains some of this stuff too. Especially interesting is the second part, "Geology and the Age of the Earth":

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/

Dawn: You should really check out the link I posted; it should put your mind at lease about radioactive dating. Especially if all you've ever heard about it is from its opponents.

barlowgirl: You'll notice that I said "Creationists" and not merely "Christians". I know not all Christians are that silly, but I think Creationists generally believe in a young earth.

Wooden Mammoth: I have not heard that one has to provide an estimate of how old you think something is when you want it dated. Where did you hear this? I am curious.

Jack the Giant Killer: http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/2-5.html

Stoic: Good one; thanks.

Rev Einstein: Your link to human footprints doesn't work. I'll look into your other links, though; thanks.

Rev. Einstein: Perhaps I will not get as far as I thought in looking at your links, since they seem to include much hogwash. I clicked on the first link and chose a random link from there; in the second paragraph it states:

"This gas undoubtedly contains a significant amount of argon 40. Volcanos typically have magma chambers under them, from which the eruptions occur. It seems reasonable that gas would collect at the top of these chambers, causing artificially high K-Ar radiometric ages there."

Gasses such as argon contained within magma are not in gas phase; they are dissolved in the magma. Even if there were bubbles of gas present in magma, they would probably be very small and the magma would be viscous enough to keep them from all "collecting at the top".

I do have an open mind, but pseudoscience and idiocy will not work on me.

Rev Einstein: Found at the top of your second link:

" I once heard of a trick played on scientists by some anti evolutionists. The scientists subsequently dated a piece of LIVE coral as 14,000 years old."

The anomalous old age of a mollusk is explained here: http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/2-1.html

I'm trying, really I am...

The Rev again: Found at your third link:

"Types of igneous rocks include granite and basalt (lava)."

Your scientists really know their stuff, it seems. Lava is molten rock, simply magma that has reached the earth's surface, and can can form different kinds of rocks, not just basalt.

Rev's third link, first link on the page, scroll down to "Science and Assumptions" This paragraph implies, among other things, that we have to assume:

"The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed. "

The half-life of any given isotope does not change. The decay rate is always the same; there is nothing "wrong" with assuming that it's constant. The entire paragraph, including the mysterious "historical science", is hogwash.

Tried another random link at the first page you link to, about the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, but it just uses the nonsense argon-rising argument again.

At the Rev's second link:

"Carbon dating is the process of using decay rate of carbon to determine how old something that is made out of carbon is. Its fairly precise up unto about 5,000 years, but after that there is really no way to calibrate it, that means to verify it by some other independent method, so it works out ok to a point. Also, there's no reason that things have always been exactly the same as far as decay rates are concerned. Mayor changes could have occurred when God cursed the ground or during the flood..."

Does this person know what the word "calibrate" means?

And, why didn't I think of that? God just screwed with the decay rates of radioactive isotopes when he smote the earth with the flood! Just to try to trick us by making the earth look 4.6 billion years old, right? Reminds me of how Simplicio said that God could have made the universe one but have it appear another way...

I'm sorry, but I think I'm finished looking at your helpful links...

Answer 1

I agree 100%.

Almost ALL different fields of science have different ways of calculating the Earth's age (carbon dating, polar ice rings, etc), and yet they all come with around the same age...coincidence? I think not.

EDIT: The link clearly shows a reason for why carbon dating can show a just killed seal as being 300 years old, and that is because of the thousand year error rate of the method. Yet, when we date something very old, it is around 100s of thousands of years old, and even if we are 1000 years off, it still doesn't come close to anywhere near the 6000 years the Creationists say.

Answer 2

Through Bible geneology, it gives evidence that MAN has been on earth for nearly 6,000 years. But why would that HAVE to mean that the "heavens and earth" have only been around that long too?

Billions of years could have passed (and probably did, considering the scientific evidence) between the statement "In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth" (Gen. 1:1) and the next sentence in Gen. 1:2.

So God most likely created the earth billions of years ago and THEN created man only 6,000 years ago.

Answer 3

I could answer this question by saying; that homo sapian minded technology science was not included in the scriptures in any shape or form, as this development came later when the human mind open itself up too the question of how, why and when did this planet and its inheritance evolve.

What were the technological advances in those distant days of the Bronze Age, where the homo sapians had thrown their stone axes away for the metal replacements that we find in archaeological digs contained in the earth tday.

The art of writing and who actually wanted to record transactions of bartering or buying and selling goods in Sumerian clay tablets discarded as wast.

The settlement of nomads into villages and towns, who would build walls for protection from those who wished to steal from them and even kill in the process as to gain their wealth.

Their legacy is filled with myths and gods of many and the clan of a small Habiru trading tribe, who travelled far and wide would eventually leave a religion far greater than their achievements in life in those far off days of old.

Answer 4

Well, not so fast. Radio-metric dating methods must yield a date range within the specific layer of the geologic column that the test specimen came from. In other words, radio-metric methods are calibrated to the geologic column- which, by the way, is assumed (c 1830).
You should think this through.
As sophisticated as radio-metric dating methods are, data that does not support the geologic column is discarded as faulty data.
Thats not so overwhelming, once you look at the whole picture.

Answer 5

because if you date young things it is wrong - like a freshly killed seal dates to be 300 years old, what's with that?

the process is based on assumptions. when you submit something to be dated you have to provide an estimate of how old you think it is? why?

Answer 6

Not all of us dont. I do- and I also know that it can also be wrong ALOT. Why do you think all Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old- the Bible does NOT say that.

Answer 7

I personally think that Creationists have just as much ability to use logic and reasoning as you or I.

However, they make an initial assumption, before anything else...that God exists.

As a result, everything they build upon after that - fossils, geology etc. whilst they have the ability to critically analyse and understand what the data is saying, since it disagrees with their very first fundamental "God exists" law (which they've imposed themselves), everything falls apart after that whenever something is contradicting God's existence.

Answer 8

"But is there a, you know, valid reason?"

no, you covered it with "it shatters my worldview, so i choose to ignore it"

see the links so helpfully posted above (about the "unreliability" of RM dating) and judge for yourself

Answer 9

Good link thank you.

Answer 10

Dinosaur and human footprints found TOGETHER...http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tra...
Check it out.

Evolution only makes 'sense' if you choose to ignore all the scientific evidence that show that it could never have occured.


.Read here for a great article on the unreliability of decay rates and radiometric dating methods.

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.answers2prayer.org/bible_questions/Answers/carbon_dating/carbon_dating.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp