AntonGoldnagel
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2024
- Messages
- 44
This is an excerpt from some information I read about radiometric dating.
"Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectation
https://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating.
Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable.
However, no matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it.
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed. And hence, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.
It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.
So, how do geologists know how to interpret their radiometric dates and what the ‘correct’ date should be?
Field relationships: A geologist works out the relative age of a rock by carefully studying where the rock is found in the field. The field relationships, as they are called, are of primary importance and all radiometric dates are evaluated against them.
THE fact is there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’ radiometric dating results".[not only the reading of the radiometric instrument]
"Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the Earth is millions of years old. The vast age has simply been assumed. The calculated radiometric ‘ages’ depend on the assumptions that are made. The results are only accepted if they agree with what is already believed.
The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. We have both in the Bible.
And that is why creationists use the historical evidence in the e to constrain their interpretations of the geological evidence.
What if the rock ages are not ‘known’ [assumed] in advance—does radio-dating give coherent results? The relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. … if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable’.
Radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with what geologists already believe the age should be.
Evolutionary geologists believe that the rocks are millions of years old because they assume they were formed very slowly. They have worked out their geologic timescale based on this assumption. " (end of excerpt)
Admitedly I could not explain the science behind this document nor understand it fully, but I do know that radiometric dating timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks very quickly, and that this event would completely change their estimate of earth's age,. Importantly science will not recognize the power of God to instantly create something that displays all the characteristics of something that is much older than the time it took to create it, I can think of two example the creation of Adam and Jesus changing instantaneously water into wine. (Gen 2:7; John 2:7… )
The ""creation days" (Gen 1:5-2:2 is subject to much interpretation, the Bible does not say how long they were, a clue that the term "day"is a variable concept is that the whole 6 days are also called "the day" of creation (gen2:4) and that the Apostle Paul hinted that they were still in God's 7th day of rest. (Heb 4:5). Additionally the Bible gives no indication as to how long the material existed before the first day began.
The question seems valid,
is there a good reason for a Christian to put science theory before the Bible account ?
"Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectation
https://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating.
Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable.
However, no matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it.
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed. And hence, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.
It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.
So, how do geologists know how to interpret their radiometric dates and what the ‘correct’ date should be?
Field relationships: A geologist works out the relative age of a rock by carefully studying where the rock is found in the field. The field relationships, as they are called, are of primary importance and all radiometric dates are evaluated against them.
THE fact is there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’ radiometric dating results".[not only the reading of the radiometric instrument]
"Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the Earth is millions of years old. The vast age has simply been assumed. The calculated radiometric ‘ages’ depend on the assumptions that are made. The results are only accepted if they agree with what is already believed.
The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. We have both in the Bible.
And that is why creationists use the historical evidence in the e to constrain their interpretations of the geological evidence.
What if the rock ages are not ‘known’ [assumed] in advance—does radio-dating give coherent results? The relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. … if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable’.
Radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with what geologists already believe the age should be.
Evolutionary geologists believe that the rocks are millions of years old because they assume they were formed very slowly. They have worked out their geologic timescale based on this assumption. " (end of excerpt)
Admitedly I could not explain the science behind this document nor understand it fully, but I do know that radiometric dating timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks very quickly, and that this event would completely change their estimate of earth's age,. Importantly science will not recognize the power of God to instantly create something that displays all the characteristics of something that is much older than the time it took to create it, I can think of two example the creation of Adam and Jesus changing instantaneously water into wine. (Gen 2:7; John 2:7… )
The ""creation days" (Gen 1:5-2:2 is subject to much interpretation, the Bible does not say how long they were, a clue that the term "day"is a variable concept is that the whole 6 days are also called "the day" of creation (gen2:4) and that the Apostle Paul hinted that they were still in God's 7th day of rest. (Heb 4:5). Additionally the Bible gives no indication as to how long the material existed before the first day began.
The question seems valid,
is there a good reason for a Christian to put science theory before the Bible account ?
