Giving an answer to Creationists – component 2 reactions to creationst that is general
Typical Creationist Criticism’s of Mainstream Dating MethodsBy Chris StassenPart of Stassen’s FAQ file The chronilogical age of our planet, that also relates to a number of other assertions that are young-Earth radiometric dating site dating.
Radiometric Dating together with Geological Time Scale – Circular Reasoning or Reliable ToolsBy Andrew MacRaeMacRae received their PhD in Geology through the University of Calgary in 1996. This can be a well illustrated article that includes stratigraphy, general time scales, plus the absolute chronometry supplied by radiometric relationship. It’s a typical assertion from young-Earthers that dating methods are circular; that fossils are dated in accordance with their strata and that the strata are dated based on their fossils. The assertion is flatly false.
Chronilogical age of the Earthby Robert Williams it is a basic reaction to a few young-Earth arguments.
Nearly all product is on radiometric dating, even though some other defective young-Earth age arguments are addressed aswell. Information, outcomes, and defective methodologies are addressed. Of specific interest is some tabulated information from Dalrymple’s chronilogical age of our planet (see below). These data well illustrate the internal consistencies of radiometric methods that are dating. A well crafted article worth reading.
Fresh Lava Dated As 22 Million Years OldBy Computer Scientist Don LindsayA common creationist argument is radiometric relationship must certanly be unreliable, because fresh Hawaiian lava had been dated become scores of years old. But it is a legend that is urban as Lindsay points out. Also see his The Creation/Evolution Controversy web page for way more product on creationism, including other radiometric subjects. Continue reading Giving an answer to Creationists – component 2 reactions to creationst that is general
