Creation rock dating dating navy boy
Reasons given usually involved detrital intrusion, leakage or leaching of some of the isotopes in the sample, and sometimes the initial isotopic content of the sample.For K-Ar dates, it's easy to blame argon loss if the reported age is too short, or argon absorption if it's too long.Evolutionists often describe these methods as proving the ancient age of the earth and its strata.Creationists often criticize the methods as giving totally false results.
Each team criticized the others' techniques of rock sample selection.
Most radiometric arguments were said to favor the 2.6 MY date, but the paleontological arguments favored the 1.8 MY date-(that is where the skull would best fit evolutionary theory).
And final agreement came only after paleontologists had agreed on fossil correlations involving two species of extinct pigs. Commenting on this method of selecting rock samples for radiometric dating, Lubenow asks: The question arises, "How does one know when one has good samples for dating?
"How can creationists expect people to accept a young earth when science has proved through radiometric dating that the earth is billions of years old?
" This article addresses that question, which represents the thinking of a large number of people today.