For dating methods answers in genesis congratulate, what
Posted in Dating
You know, its amazing how ignorant Dr Snelling is ignorant of the basic principles of geochronology. What he completely omits is how many of his data points fall so far from the isochron line, indicating how horribly contaminated the samples were with the exception of the Rb-Sr isochron Im surprised he didnt outright discard the results. Even a rank amateur like me instantly saw what was wrong. Tragically, he has basically discarded everything he has learnt and is wholly focused on undermining the validity of the scientific method. By the way, I noticed that some of the readings from the other dating methods fell in the 5. I wonder why? Sorry should have typed "You know, its amazing how ignorant Dr Snelling is of the basic principles of geochronology.
Friday, May 23, Andrew Snelling concedes, radiometric dating of meteorites is solid. Note the strong peak at 4. If you're not familiar with this claim already, Andrew Snelling and colleagues in the RATE team have decided to brush away the overwhelming evidence of an old Earth from geochronology by suggesting that at several points in Earth's 6,year history, rates of nuclear decay increased by a million times or more, leaving us with the false impression that geological history spans millions to billions of years instead.
Regarding accelerated nuclear decay, Snelling writes: " For Snelling, the philosophical possibility that God can arbitrarily change characteristics of how the universe functions has become an axiomatic point of departure to explain why both scientists and biblical scholars must be wrong about history.
Snelling further writes in his concluding remarks about why meteorites may represent the 'primordial' creation material:. Most meteorites are believed have been derived from asteroids via collisions between them breaking off fragments that then hurtled towards the earth. The implication here is that the Genesis author chose his verbs or received them divinely as a function of the material origins of different parts of the cosmos, rather than something of interest to the original, Israelite audience.
This line of reasoning imports a rigid-and entirely modern-distinction between the Hebrew verbs in a manner that is fine-tuned to address the concerns of a 21st-century American audience. Snelling reads what he wants to read in scripture so that he may see what he wants to see in nature. In short, he has traded truth for certainty. It also had three decks.
There was a lot of space for the animals, and God could have also brought younger animals to the ark, thus taking up less space. Animals would have been scattered all over the world. Did Noah have to search them out and bring them to the ark? There are many examples today of birds and other animals that migrate from one place to another. One of those creatures is the Monarch butterfly, which lives in the United States and Canada in the summer and migrates to Mexico for the winter.
Skeptics have asked how water could cover all the high mountains on the earth. Does that much water even exist in the oceans, rivers, lakes and atmosphere? The water did not just come from the rain, but also came from the interior of the earth. Much of the water came from the reservoirs in the earth.
Even today there are still large underground reservoirs of water. There is much more to learn about the Flood. It is one of the most fascinating accounts in the entire Bible.
Questions and Answers About the Genesis Flood
Bill Jahns graduated from Ambassador College inand he has worked full time in the ministry since then. Subscribe to Blog.
Andrew Snelling: A Geologist Discusses Dating Methods
Question 1: Was the Flood really a global flood? My hope is to convince you this is the case through the following example, and that AiG had prematurely discredited the K-Ar dating method. How do you date a New Zealand volcano? Robert Doolan of Answers in Genesis concluded that the K-Ar method is not a valid option in response to the above question. His argument goes like this: 1 We can use the distribution of vegetation, tree rings, carbon-dating from wood samples buried in ash, and even historical reports to date a number of recent volcanoes in New Zealand.
At first glance, Mr. Doolan provides a convincing case against the credibility of K-Ar dating. I remember reading similar reports years ago, which cited numerous cases of historical lava flows note: historical meaning humans witnessed it that were dated radiometrically to be a few hundred thousand to millions of years old.
I was originally quite convinced by the discrepancy that radiometric dating methods were fundamentally flawed: "If radiometric dating methods are so wrong when the age is known, how can we trust them when the age is unknown?
But if the failure of the K-Ar dating method is so obvious, why do scientists still spend so much money on running samples? Is there a grand conspiracy to hide the flaws, which are so simple to point out?
Search This Blog
As you might expect, it is never that simple. So here is my analysis: 1 The author is either ignorant of his source or is being intentionally deceptive Mr. Doolan first explains that the largest volcano is the youngest. This is true, but he does so in a way that would make you think scientists either doubted that young age, or figured they could use K-Ar dating to come up with a "final answer.
Doolan says: "In the late s, scientists from the Australian National University in Canberra dated numerous volcanoes in Auckland using the potassium-argon method Results seemed to show that Rangitoto was not a few hundred years old as it appeared to be. Anyone with access to a university library system can check whether this is true, but most AiG readers and I don't blame them wouldn't care to take the time to find a year old journal article.
Since I always have a search engine open for journal articles, I was able to find it rather quickly. One only need to read the abstract to get my point here, where McDougall writes: "Because of the good age control, this area was chosen for a detailed study to test whether the K-Ar dating method could be used for dating such young basaltic rocks.
So did the original authors warn others to reject the K-Ar method and that it could never give us insight to the true age of rocks? Of course not.
May 23, Andrew Snelling concedes, radiometric dating of meteorites is solid "The other "successful" radioisotope methods are not really independent and thus objective, because they are calibrated against the Pb-Pb method Btw I am currently co-writing a book on the Answers in Genesis gang, will be citing your Snelling posts in it. Jan 30, Can we rely on radiometric dating techniques? How accurate are they? First, I'll start by referring you to an extensive article on the young earth creation science website Answers in Genesis, titled "What About Carbon Dating?" While Carbon is in the title, the article talks about many forms of dating. Admission. Robert Doolan of Answers in Genesis concluded that the K-Ar method is not a valid option in response to the above question. His argument goes like this: 1) We can use the distribution of vegetation, tree rings, carbon-dating from wood samples buried in ash, and even historical reports to date a number of recent volcanoes in New Zealand.
But why not? The first reason is that the amount of initial Argon, while detectable, is very very small. I realize that to most people an error ofyears seems substantial, but if the volcano you are dating is actually million years old then it makes no difference that the "clock" started atThe second reason is more profound, but before I elucidate, I would conclude that Mr. Doolan has clearly misused the source he cited: McDougall et al. This process is obviously more important in rocks that solidify at the surface i.
Nov 27, Enjoy Dr. Andrew Snelling's "Science Confirms a Young Earth - The Radioactive Dating Methods are Flawed" presentation from the ReEngage conference in Brisbane, Australia. To order resources from. Jan 31, Ever wonder how anybody really knows how old the earth is? Are all dating methods really accurate and reliable? This video explores the multiple assumptions that take place in certain "dating. Jan 23, Radiometric dating measures the decay of radioactive atoms to determine the age of a rock sample. It is founded on ucountryconnectionsqatar.comovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant. By dating rocks of known ages which give highly inflated ages, geologists have shown this method can't give reliable.
In order to get to the surface, magma must make its way through thick portions of country rock, which is much older and may contain a significant amount of radiogenic argon. While the magma rises to the surface, it heats up the surrounding rock and argon is transferred to the melt.
This argon is potentially captured in the crystal structure of forming minerals, which would give it an anomalously old date. Geologists have known about this problem since the K-Ar method was first put forth, and McDougall et al. Therein, the authors explain contamination processes and consider the isochron method to solve the problem I won't describe that process in detail here; their results are given on p.
The isochrons plot well, and form statistically significant lines i. In other words, there was more initial argon than might be expected from a purely atmospheric source.
McDougall et al. Xenolithic quartz was also found, indicating that the melt had incorporated foreign material during its assent.
Thus McDougall et al. This method should always be combined with thorough petrographic analyses to constrain the degree of contamination from the atmosphere and wall rock, as well as other radiometric dating methods like C and Uranium partitioning. While the resultant isochron ages were obviously "false", they did produce internally consistent isochron ages.
This Pocket Guide to A Young Earth examines the age of the earth from a biblical and scientific perspective. It reveals geological information not often presented in public schools and secular colleges, and will equip you with answers that are based on the authority of God s Word/5(14).
This means that if one came back in million years and dated the same volcanic rock, it would produce an age that isyears too old, or In other words, this study confirms the use of K-Ar isochrons in older volcanic rocks since the true age would be within the uncertainty range of your model age.
To summarize thus far: a The purpose of McDougall et al.
Dating methods answers in genesis
The authors found the method to be unreliable in isolation, but readily explained the discordant ages using thorough petrographic and geochemical analyses.
As documented in the McDougall paper, the excess radiogenic argon had to come partly from sedimentary rocks surrounding the magma chamber.
This means radiogenic argon had been accumulating in those rocks for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years before it was incorporated into the erupting basalts. Even if all K-Ar ages are invalid, one must still deal with the physical reason they are invalid.
Radiometric dating techniques were rudimentary, in that they required large samples and a steady hand. So wouldn't it be nice if someone used more recent technology to test such predictions? That brings me to my next point. It is fairly concise, but in depth.
Quite right! I think, what is it excellent idea.14.03.2020|Reply
In my opinion you are not right. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.17.03.2020|Reply
Your idea simply excellent15.03.2020|Reply