[FAQs]: The s FAQ archive (1 of 2)

The following comprises a series of essays written in response to a discussion held on the Message Board of this web site. The discussion, between a young creationist, Rob, and several other regular contributors, eventually came to the issue of radio isotope dating. Rob mentioned that Steve Austin’s Grand Canyon dating experiment cast doubt on the viability of absolute dating systems. Naturally the notion was rebuffed and respondents pointed to articles heavily critical of the YEC experiment. Wanting to hear both sides of the issue, Rob wrote to Answers in Genesis, highlighting some particular lines written by Chris Stassen in an article critical of Austin’s Canyon work. The relevant lines were:. The conditions which caused the “false isochron” in this case are fairly well-understood, and easy to avoid by proper sample selection.

Evidence against a recent creation

Search the FAQ Archives. View all headers. Path: cs. Origins Archive, which is a repository of FAQs for the talk.

Origins Archive); Darwin, Charles: The Origin of Species (th edition; Online Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (short article that presents evidence in origins); Biology and Evolutionary Theory (maintained by the talk.​origins.

Do you have an item you would like to have dated? For Research Professionals Please scroll down on this page for links to computer programs. SIRI update. VIRI consensus values. Computer Programs. This is an online radiocarbon calibration program with downloadable versions for Windows and Mac platforms. The program can be used for calibration of dates using the IntCal curves or post-bomb data.

Comparisons can also be made to any user-supplied data-set. The package also allows Bayesian analysis of sequences, phases, tree-ring sequences, age-depth models, etc. There is an online manual.

Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory

Judson and S. Roger C. Also a few entries from including Wesley R. Elsberry’s talk.

UNIT 1 WEB SITES. Discusses several methods of relative and absolute dating Discusses how.

The purpose of this index is to list all the claims of young earth creationists, and provide rebuttals to those claims. Although the idea for this index came from the TalkOrigins. Many arguments will have additional arguments against the young earth claims which do not appear on the Talk Origins site. In addition, some arguments used on the Talk Origins site will not be used here.

This list will also add many arguments not addressed in the Talk Origins listings, and links will be added to other websites of interest, giving the reader more opportunity to research the topic. The list will grow as new arguments are indexed and addressed, thus it is a fluid document. Some of the links below will take you to the Talk Origins website response. As OEM responses are written, these will be replaced. OEM responses completed are highlighted. These rebuttals are shortened versions of many of our full length articles.

The full length articles may be accessed by using the menu on the left. If you came directly to this page from a search engine, please visit our home page before you leave, and thanks for stopping by.


Art for me is many things. In our society, particularly in current times, I believe that art is an affirmation of our humanity; a symbol of perseverance in the face of adversity. It is the light at the end of a tunnel; a much-needed light to counteract the darkness that has engulfed many a homeland. One can control the art but not the reaction to it.

(1 of 3) [31/8/ PM​] Hooijer, all of which describe difficulties in using faunal methods to date.

Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research ICR have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon C dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters.

Answer: Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen N into carbon C or radiocarbon. Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C into their bodies along with other carbon isotopes. When the organisms die, they stop incorporating new C, and the old C starts to decay back into N by emitting beta particles. The older an organism’s remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate.

The Age of the Earth

To browse Academia. Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up.

s Rebuttals. • Guest Articles: • Geology & Dating • Biology measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed.

An Essay on Radiometric Dating. Radiometric dating methods are the strongest direct evidence that geologists have for the age of the Earth. All these methods point to Earth being very, very old — several billions of years old. Young-Earth creationists — that is, creationists who believe that Earth is no more than 10, years old — are fond of attacking radiometric dating methods as being full of inaccuracies and riddled with sources of error.

When I first became interested in the creation-evolution debate, in late , I looked around for sources that clearly and simply explained what radiometric dating is and why young-Earth creationists are driven to discredit it. I found several good sources, but none that seemed both complete enough to stand alone and simple enough for a non-geologist to understand them. Thus this essay, which is my attempt at producing such a source.

Age of the Universe

The Rise of Mammals This diagram shows the enormous increase in the variety of mammals since the Cretaceous period. Biology and Evolutionary Theory This collection of articles and essays offers scientific responses to the many questions and rebuttals that have appeared in Talk. Origins, a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins.

See the s isochrone FAQ for more on radioactive dating. the oldest stars that is independent of the main-sequence lifetime method.

Others had tried. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of evidence the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track dating and more that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place. It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.

Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay process was wrong Wieland It marks a move away from reliance on ‘appearance of age’ and the arguments of creationists like John Woodmoreappe Plaisted , who asserted that radioisotope dates are the result of filtering essentially random numbers through the institutional biases of science.

These young-Earth creationists now argue that radioisotope decay has actually occurred, can be measured accurately, and that it would require billions of years at present rates to account for the current condition of the Earth. The scientific community has been making those very arguments for decades. The RATE team, however, because of their unshakable Biblical faith in a 6, year old Earth, rejects uniformitarianism Humphreys and argues that the rate of decay was greatly accelerated during the first two days of Creation Week and during the year-long Flood of Noah DeYoung This paper examines the evidence RATE cites for believing that decay has been accelerated, the proposed mechanisms for that acceleration, and several difficulties with the theory.

The RATE group identified four separate pieces of evidence for the acceleration of radioisotope decay: 1 helium accumulation in zircon crystals, 2 the existence of polonium halos, 3 isotope discordance, and 4 the presence of 14 C in diamonds Vardiman et al. Zircon crystals contain high quantities of uranium, which produces helium during its decay process.

Physics and creation — an interview with physicist Dr Jim Mason (Creation Magazine LIVE! 3-22)