Radiometric Dating and Reason — Part 6

This is the sixth in a series on radiometric dating. (Actually, I think of this one as part 5B since Part 5 laid the groundwork.) If you want to catch up or review, get your bookmarking apparatus and think bones ready: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5. Or you can feel free to read on anyway.

It has been established that radiometric dating methods are unreliable, showing widely-varying results, and even yielding millions of years for rocks of known age. These methods use several assumptions and circular reasoning. There are many other methods that show the earth to be far younger than secularists would like, but I reckon that they have to use bad science in order to preserve their old-earth evolutionary paradigm.

Other radiometric dating methods have been attempted, but these, too have assumptions and are flawed.

This series has summarized radioisotope dating models, their assumptions, and how those assumptions mistakenly lead to a “deep time” picture of our universe. Secularist scientists want us to accept their circular arguments and improbable assumptions as scientific fact, despite the fact these same scientists often push aside the scientific method itself.

Using the various types of radioisotope decay as clocks does not produce consistent results, nor are those results verifiable by observational evidence. If these methods do not properly date rocks of known ages—some less than a century old—how can we trust them to date rocks of unknown ages?

To finish reading this article, click on "Rare-Earth Clocks, Sm-Nd and Lu-Hf Dating Models 2: Radioactive Dating, Part 6".