Are radiometric dating methods reliable Free mobile live video chat myanmar
The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them: Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution.
Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils.
Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide.
All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.
This is, in essence, what many people believe time can accomplish.
Now to our next witness against the reliability of radiometric dating, Don Boys, Ph. Boys notes: “Rock samples from twenty-two volcanic rocks in different parts of the Earth are known to have been formed during the last 200 years, yet radio-active dating methods provided ages that ranged from 100 million to 10,000 million years!
It was, after all, the uniformitarian geology of Charles Lyell and his speculations regarding immense ages shaping the geology of the earth that laid the foundation for Darwinian biological evolutionary speculation.
In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected.
New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’.
And it is radiometric dating, more than any other procedure, which evolutionists point to as their chief justification for believing in ancient ages of fossils, rocks and the earth. The allowance for immense ages in their thesis works against their anti-Darwinian propositions, at least polemically.
(In supreme irony, modern evolutionists have the foundational uniformitarian hypothesis in favor of catastrophism – or actually multiple catastrophisms, plural – without, apparently, a moments’ notice that this tends to undermine the whole evolutionary hypothesis.) Maybe these old-earth anti-Darwinian writers are picking and choosing their battles? The unsophisticated reader (and even many sophisticated scientists), having been brainwashed by the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine of our public education system and its big media outlets, will simply succumb to the ingrained notion that, “Well, because is involved, anything (i.e., evolution) can happen given hundreds of millions of years;” and this notion undermines all of the time and effort the writer has put into the anti-evolutionary argumentation, no matter how persuasive.