Some might already be familiar with the online article "Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective." For those who don't, it's a long read, but a "must read" for anyone who wants to argue against radiometric dating and "long ages, because the truth is there are a ton of myths and misconceptions about radiometric dating. So before debating the subject, people should at least be better informed about radiometric dating and how it really works. (For those who just want to know the key take aways of the article, see below):
One of the most important take aways is that we have over 40 different radiometric dating methods *plus* additional NON-radiometric dating methods that independently confirm the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. This is a hallmark of good science: when different methods and measurements come to the same conclusion *independently* of each other that is a strong argument for the reliability of the results.
(Different radiometric dating methods independently confirm the age of the oldest rocks in Greenland within the margins of error)
Sure, radiometric dating is based in part on a number of assumptions such as that the daughter isotope (product) is all the result of the parent isotope, and not another source such as by leaching or contamination or a different natural source. But what people fail to realize is that we have ways to test the validity of those assumptions with every rock sample.
(Good rock sample where assumptions check out)
(Bad rock sample where assumptions don't check out)
Another important point (that I've never seen anyone else point out) is the problem of radioactive isotopes with a *short* half-life. If the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, then we should see an abundance of isotopes with short half lives in rocks, but with the exception of cosmogenic isotopes that can be replenished we don't see this.
Plus, we have NON-radiometric dating techniques that lead to the same conclusion (also discussed in the article). For example, the dendrochronology record (of tree rings) goes back to over 10,000 years, and the record from ice cores goes back to at least 100,000 years.
On top of this, YEC solutions simply don't work. For example, even if radioactive decay was somehow accelerated during a one year global Flood, there could be no flood, because the heat generated from such a massive amount of accelerated decay would vaporize the oceans (*and that's a conclusion from the YEC RATE Project).
The article also includes an Appendix that answers 20 common objections to radiometric dating.
Again, it is a "must read" for anyone who wants to dispute the accuracy of radiometric dating.
One of the most important take aways is that we have over 40 different radiometric dating methods *plus* additional NON-radiometric dating methods that independently confirm the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. This is a hallmark of good science: when different methods and measurements come to the same conclusion *independently* of each other that is a strong argument for the reliability of the results.
(Different radiometric dating methods independently confirm the age of the oldest rocks in Greenland within the margins of error)
Sure, radiometric dating is based in part on a number of assumptions such as that the daughter isotope (product) is all the result of the parent isotope, and not another source such as by leaching or contamination or a different natural source. But what people fail to realize is that we have ways to test the validity of those assumptions with every rock sample.
(Good rock sample where assumptions check out)
(Bad rock sample where assumptions don't check out)
Another important point (that I've never seen anyone else point out) is the problem of radioactive isotopes with a *short* half-life. If the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, then we should see an abundance of isotopes with short half lives in rocks, but with the exception of cosmogenic isotopes that can be replenished we don't see this.
Plus, we have NON-radiometric dating techniques that lead to the same conclusion (also discussed in the article). For example, the dendrochronology record (of tree rings) goes back to over 10,000 years, and the record from ice cores goes back to at least 100,000 years.
On top of this, YEC solutions simply don't work. For example, even if radioactive decay was somehow accelerated during a one year global Flood, there could be no flood, because the heat generated from such a massive amount of accelerated decay would vaporize the oceans (*and that's a conclusion from the YEC RATE Project).
The article also includes an Appendix that answers 20 common objections to radiometric dating.
Again, it is a "must read" for anyone who wants to dispute the accuracy of radiometric dating.
Last edited:
