"Â ” Well , the first popular technique of creationists is to try to find examples of bad radiometric dates and offer these up as proof that radiometric dating is totally unreliable . Henry Morris , in his 1974 book `` Scientific Creationism `` made the claim that K/Ar dates for lava from the 1801 Hulalalei volcano lava flow ranged from 160 million years to 3 billion years old . With results like these , radiometric dating must be totally useless - how could scientists possibly be so stupid as to believe that radiometric dating could be of any merit when a simple lava flow gives such a wide range of dates - right in their own research ? As usual with such claims , we 'll have to dig a little further to get at the truth . Morris cited a study by Funkhouser and Norton Â– `` Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii `` published in the Journal of Geophysics Research , vol . 73 , pgs . 4601 - 4607 . What Morris did n't bother to inform his readers was that the study concerned xenoliths - fragments of foreign rock broken off by the magmas intrusion through the crust . Since they are not completely melted by the magma , they are in fact much older than the lava flow ( with K/Ar dating , what you are really dating is how long it has been since the rock solidified from the molten state - at this point the daughter Argon can no longer escape from the rock ) . That particular study confirmed ( as geologists already suspected ) that xenoliths could not be properly dated with the K/Ar method . The Funkhouser and Norton study clearly stated that the `` ages `` determined by K/Ar dating had no geological meaning and also determined that the xenoliths contained excess argon trapped in `` air `` bubbles inside the rock . Of course there was no mention of these details by Morris or any of the internet postings I have seen that still list this `` problem `` - despite the fact that Dalrymple answered it over 10 years ago . In the same paper , Dalrymple goes on to describe in detail several other quotes taken out of context by Creationists.Â ” ( http : //www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html )"
"So the radiometric data stand : the Earth , moon , and older meteorites are all 4 or so billion years old , not just a few thousand . Changing Decay Rates ? Another Creationist attempt to counter radiometric dates that are incompatible with their young-Earth religious position is to claim that decay rates are not constant , thereby throwing a monkey wrench into the calculations . There are at least two problems with this argument . First , it is not at all clear how varying decay rates could result in multiple decay sequences all agreeing on the age of an object . Remember , for example , the oldest exposed rocks on earth , dated using different parent radioisotopes ? All five of the decay sequences ( Rb-Sr , Pb-Pb , U-Pb , Th-Pb , and Lu-Hf ) clustered right around 3.7 billion years . If decay rates vary enough to throw off dates by billions of years , why would they vary in exactly the way needed to consistently produce the same results ? Second , radioactive decay of nuclei is not comparable to chemical reactions . In chemistry , the rate at which chemical reaction proceeds can be altered in a number of ways , such as by changing the temperature , acidity , pressure , or reactant concentrations . Such changes , however , have essentially no effect on nuclear decay . In fact , experimental attempts to alter decay rates have been made , but failed ."
"Well , the first popular technique of creationists is to try to find examples of bad radiometric dates and offer these up as proof that radiometric dating is totally unreliable . ``"
"Changing Decay Rates ? Another Creationist attempt to counter radiometric dates that are incompatible with their young-Earth religious position is to claim that decay rates are not constant , thereby throwing a monkey wrench into the calculations ."