Radiological dating

Between 19 several teams made a number of radiometric measurements, and the results clustered around three ages-1.8 MY, 2.4 MY, and 2.6 MY.

Each team criticized the others’ techniques of rock sample selection.

And, of course, the public doesn’t usually hear of these wrong answers.

This statement – that radiometric dates are “corrected” by reference to evolution-based index fossils – is hotly contested, but examination of the technical literature shows that it is true, in spite of what elementary textbooks say. Documented Discrepancies The general public believes that radiometric results are consistent and thus demonstrably reliable. John Woodmorappe did an extensive literature search, looking at 445 technical articles from 54 reputable geochronology and geology journals.1 These reports listed over 350 dates, measured by radiometric methods, that conflicted badly with the ages assigned to fossils found in these same strata.

Studies have been made of submarine basalt rocks of known recent age near Hawaii. Yet it was found beneath a layer of the volcanic KBS Tuff that had an accepted radiometric date of 2.6 MY (millions of years old).

These were explained as possible overprinting by an alkaline-rich hot water infusion.Evolutionists often describe these methods as proving the ancient age of the earth and its strata.Creationists often criticize the methods as giving totally false results.They covered “expected” ages ranging from 1 to 600 million years.In almost every case of a discrepancy, the fossil dates were accepted as correct. Woodmorappe quoted one researcher as saying: In general, dates in the ‘correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.2 When these reports did discuss the possible causes of errors, they used words such as “possibly,” “perhaps,” “probably,” “may have been,” etc.

Leave a Reply