Evolutionary dating flaws Adult chat brisbane

These must be accepted on faith in uniformitarian and naturalistic frameworks.Recent research by a team of creation scientists known as the RATE (arth) group has demonstrated the unreliability of radiometric dating techniques.As discussed before, the assumptions influence the interpretation of the data.There are three main assumptions that must be made to accept radiometric dating methods.anthropologist Geoffrey Clark echoed this view in 1997 when he wrote that 'we select among alternative sets of research conclusions in accordance with our biases and preconceptions -- a process that is, at once, both political and subjective.'In the case of fossils; which are essentially bones that have fossilized, meaning turned to stone; fossils are generally dated on the basis of factors other than radiometric dating; such as a particular date may be chosen for a fossil because Thus, if "Fossil A" is believed to be 4,000,000 years old, "Fossil B" may be dated to be 3,700,000 years old solely on the basis of the date of "Fossil A" and a belief in evolution (i.e.it is dated based on where "Fossil B" fits on the phylogenetic tree relative to "Fossil A"). when an unstable parent atom becomes a stable daughter atom, the dating of the specimen can no longer be done accurately), dating of old fossils is generally impossible to do directly.Determining the relative age of a rock layer is based on the assumption that you know the ages of the rocks surrounding it.Uniformitarian geologists use so-called dating methods to determine the ages of the surrounding rocks.

When you have a wide variety of animals at a specific water hole, there is likely to be fighting, either because these species always fight when they are in the same location or they may fight to get water, such as during a drought.

With this in mind, if George and Mary had existed 100,000 years ago, it is safe to say that humans should have built the B-2 bomber 90,000 years ago (being generous, as always, to the theory of evolution).

As far as the evolution debate is concerned, this aspect of the debate is so complex and so affected by pre-conceived notions (such as the fact that many dinosaur fossils are dated according to their location on the phylogenetic tree), that for all practical purposes, dating techniques cannot be used as a proof for evolution or as a proof for creation science.

have been from 500 years to 9,000 years, for example, because it is known that this river would have flooded and that the soil was moist (because the body was next to a river) and that a 9,000 year date would be ludicrous.

The reason is that the "scientific establishment" (the people who control the media, schools, etc.) wants to get the dates of fossils as old as possible to justify the theory of evolution and belittle those who believe in the Bible.

Search for evolutionary dating flaws:

evolutionary dating flaws-78

Starting with the Bible and developing a model for dating events in earth history will lead us to the truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “evolutionary dating flaws”