Assumptions made in radiometric dating

assumptions made in radiometric dating-25
The 65 Million years is not based on hard science, but merely to prop up evolution. Note: the last three examples involve sea creatures, and their incorrect dates are partly or wholly, due to the ‘Reservoir Effect.’ But this simply explains why the C-14 results are wrong.In fact, all radiometric dates which are wrong have valid explanations, most of which are due to the flawed assumptions behind the method, as explained above.

Tags: Free skype sex live chat no credit cardCam mt sex tb cgi webHorny enior chattunisia datingSex web cams in bangloredatingadvisors netLive sex jasmin arabia camsescort service dating site siteSex chat sites without moneypua online dating techniques

Radiometric dating or radioactive dating is a technique used to date.

There are three assumptions used when scientists measure ages with the radiometric dating process.

The existence of valid explanations does not change the fact that the method gives wrong answers.

More precisely, radiometric dating is based on the assumption that nothing “really exceptional” happened in the meantime. This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say.

Evolution requires eons of time, hence the inundation of long ages in everything we see and read; millions and even billions of years.

Although time makes no difference as far as evolution is concerned because it is based on mutations which only degrade genes, and evolution requires an enormous increase of genetic information in going from a single cell organism (600,000 nucleotides) to human beings (C being in everything.

For powerful evidence in support of a young earth, go to: https://

As shown previously, ice core dating when actual measurements are taken into account, does not support deep time either: https://

When I first became interested in the creation-evolution debate, in late 1994, I looked around for sources that clearly and simply explained what radiometric dating is and why young-Earth creationists are driven to discredit it.

I found several good sources, but none that seemed both complete enough to stand alone and simple enough for a nongeologist to understand them.


Comments Assumptions made in radiometric dating

The Latest from ©