Radiometric Dating — The Thrill Is Gone?

morgueFile/xandert (modified) 

No scientist is neutral regarding data (despite the claims of Darwin's Cheerleaders). Everyone has a starting point. Creation scientists have long pointed out flaws and inconsistencies in radiometric dating. Evolution scientists obtain inconsistent results that are cherry-picked to fit their uniformitarian, fundamentally flawed presuppositions.

Scientists put forward models and ideas and see if the data support them. Creationists from the RATE Project have been frustrating uniformitarian scientists. But they are not in lockstep on their models or their findings, and are continuing their investigations and analyses.

Radiometric dating is still a faulty argument against biblical history. Naturalistic geolo­gists often “cherry-pick” dates they deem appropriate to their particular studies. Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamond samples supposedly be billions of years old, even though the half-life of ¹⁴C is only 5730 years. The creationist RATE group's theory that there have been periods of accelerated nuclear decay in the past runs into the problem of rapid volume cooling. Woodmorappe's statistical noise theory that radiometric dating is inherently unreliable may indeed be vindicated.

The inherent inconsis­tency of secular results strengthens the argument for a young earth, as the Bible describes in a most straightforward way!

Selections from RATE Study: Questions Regarding Accelerated Nuclear Decay and Radiometric Dating, by Carl R. Frode Jr. and A. Jerry Akridge.

(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the article published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 49 Number 1, Summer 2012)

You can read the rest of "Is the Romance of Radiometric Dating Getting Old?", here.