russian women dating italian men - Has radiometric dating ever been wrong

And today we know through lab experiments and natural disasters (such as the eruption of Mt. Helens) that major layering of rock strata can happen catastrophically in a short period of time.

Young-earth creation geologists have long held that most sedimentary strata resulted from waterborne deposits during Noah’s Flood.

has radiometric dating ever been wrong-63

Then they ALWAYS come back dated at 100,000s to millions of years old. NEVER do they come back from the lab, with the note: Too young to measure. If you know the date of the source of the rock, they say you don’t have to accept this dating technique’s numbers… But recently, the RATE research team has conclusively demonstrated (with independent lines of evidence) that radioactive decay rates, widely used to bolster deep time, were dramatically accelerated in the past.

but if its an unknown sample, then they say: “Oh, you can trust the lab dates! You see, the radiometric dating technique’s do not work when you can check the dates, but you should trust them when you can’t check them. RATE found 3 indicators that strongly indicate decay rates changed in the past, all pointing to a young age for the rocks and the earth.

A Summary of the Million Dollar RATE Research Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) Introduction: Rocks and fossils do not come with dates on them.

In fact, the very concept of strata representing long ages does not come from the rock strata themselves.

That concept began with eighteenth-century French naturalist Georges Cuvier, picked up steam with Charles Lyell, and it has been in vogue ever since.

This is despite the fact that it causes more problems for interpreting rock strata than it solves.

In geology, the buzzword is “The present is the key to the past” – but today – no 100 mile cavern systems are being formed, vitually no fossils are being formed, and no new strata covering entire continents are being laid down. Unfortunately, uniformitarianism has gripped geology academia and no other viewpoints are allowed.

What we see around the earth are huge layers of sedimentary rock filled with dead things. This evolutionary assumption has become a naturalistic religion, an ideology established already before Darwin published his book in 1859.

A 100 year sample of decay rates is inadequate when talking about millions of years. This is assumed to be immaterial, but can change the end results drastically.

We do not know for sure if the rate of decay was the same 1000 years ago, let alone 10,000 years ago, or millions of years ago. Has there been contamination into the rock of either extra amounts of parent or daughter elements? 3) The starting point contains only the parent element.

Also remember that modern disasters (on a smaller scale) like Mount St.

Tags: , ,