Radiometric Dating is Accurate

All thanks goes to Pro for a robust debate! Pro has argued that my position, and the evidence I have presented, has been "religious-inspired" and, therefore, is not valid. However, he fails to see that the evidence he has presented has been uniformitarian-inspired, which is just a naturalistic philosophical lens through which all his data has been interpreted. Just because ICR gives glory to God does not make their data any less scientific. Just as a uniformitarian philosophy does not make data any less scientific. We need to look at the data and see whose interpretive framework fits the data the best. Conventional geologists look at current varve forming sediment layers on the beds of existing lakes and immediately assume this must have been the same mechanism that formed the varves in the geologic column. Therefore, they interpret the rock column as such. A classical example is the Eocene Green River Formation of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. There are more than a million varves in some parts of the formation. The uniformitarian interpretation is there was an ancient lake that existed for a million years. However, this is just an assumption because no one was there to prove it! The problem with this interpretation is that the laminae are entirely too thin and uniform, and extend over too wide an area to have been deposited on the floor of an abnormally calm lake. Furthermore, part of the formation has layers of volcanic ash (tuff beds), and there are layers of varves situated between these two tuff beds. If these varves represent annual depositional layers (as the conventional geological community interprets it) than they should be uniform across the whole formation between the tuff beds. However, there is between 1089 to 1566 laminae across the formation between the two tuff beds (Geological Society of American Abstracts with Programs, 30:A317). Furthermore, the organic material (pollen) is not consistent within the laminae across this same section (even though my opponent suggested otherwise). Pro cites talkorigins regarding dating ice cores. They present 4 methods. First one is counting annual layers. However, it has been shown more than one layer can form a year (Journal of Geophysical Research 102, C12 1997, pp. 26,367-26,381). The second one is using predetermined ages as markers, but as talkorigins says "The major disadvantage is that if the predetermined age markers are incorrect than the age assigned to the ice-core will also be incorrect." It is based on assumptions. The thrid is radiometric dating, but if radiometric dating is inaccurate so will the age of the ice core. The fourth is ice flow calculations, but even talkorigins states "This is the most inaccurate of the methods used for dating ice-cores." Furthermore, there are other approaches to the measured oxygen isotopes in the ice cores (http://www.icr.org...). Also, Pro cites the GISP2 project, but what he fails to mention is that the Milankovitch Theory didn't match with the ice cores (http://www.icr.org...). Even if multiple tree ring growth is rare today how can we know it was the same in the past? Climate conditions could have been extremely different. Especially, let's say, if there was a global flood. Your uniformitarian bias betrays you. Even the source Pro cites admits it is based on a uniformitarian interpretation. Furthermore, Pro claims trees have been dated to 10000 years, but the source I cited (http://www.wired.com...), which is a secular science website and was posted only last month, states the oldest tree alive is only 4765 years old. If the earth were young this is exactly what we would expect. If radiometric decay was accelerated in the past so could have nuclear decay (which causes fission tracks). In fact, accelerated nuclear decay would have created enough heat to reset the U-Pb system in rock samples, which has been observed (http://www.icr.org...). If a dating method does not match the "expected" age then it is assumed to be in error and they continue to retest the sample until they get the data they wanted. Scientists do this with all "independent" dating methods, but it is all based on their uniformitarian presupposition, which creates a bias in their interpretation of the data. In reality, none of these dating methods are independent, because they are all dependent on uniformitarianism. For example, a suggested combined chronology of certain varves of 28000 years underwent reinterpretation to little more than 10000 years when rechecked with radiocarbon dating (R.F.Flint 1971 Glacial and Quaternary Geology). My opponent is critical of these examples, because he accuses critics of radiometric dating of only using a hand full of examples. However, there are numerous examples, but I only have limited space on this forum. In A. A. Snelling's book Earth's Catastrophic Past he lays out in a scholarly manner MORE than a hand full of examples. The reason he can't report them in conventional peer-reviewed journals is because they won't let him. It has nothing to do with his data being weak, but has everything to do with the current bias in the scientific community. Pro is correct when he asserts there are different methods of decay. Two of those are a-decaying isoptopes and b-decaying isotopes. In Snelling's book he lays out several examples where the a-decaying isotopes give older ages than the b-decaying isotopes on the same rock sample (http://www.icr.org...). A pattern definitely exists. If the decay rate had accelerated in the past the a-decayers would have been accelerated more due to their mode of decay, atomic weights, and half-lives. That is the pattern we see. Furthermore, it is theoretically possible for radioisotope decay rates to have been accelerated as a result of changes to the strong and weak nuclear forces within parent isotopes. However, the mechanism remains unknown, but it doesn't mean we won't know in the future. For more details see Snelling's book (http://store.icr.org...). I would like to point out that Pro never refuted my point that Th does not create C-14. He also never refuted my point that there is excess Ar in rock samples in which the source is not the atmosphere. So the question remains. Why is there substantial C-14 in coal beds and diamonds that should be C-14 dead, and how can we know rock samples are not contaminated from excess Ar? The main point Pro asserts is there is a 99% accuracy rating. I question the reliability of that statistic. Has someone really reviewed the thousands upon thousands of tests to derive that statistic? I doubt it. Furthermore, Pro only points to "independent" dating methods that support his point, but ignores others. For example, the rate of sodium put into oceans a year is more than is removed. The current 3.5% salinity is too low if the earth is 4.6 Ga years old (http://www.icr.org...). Also, the avg height reduction for all continents due to erosion is 2.4 in/thousand years, which means North America would be eroded flat to sea level in 10 million years (Journal of Geophysical Research, 69:3395-3401). How can the earth be 4.6 Ga? In addition, the rate of the earth's magnetic field decay has been measured at 5% per century (ESSA Technical Report, IER 46-IES1). Putting the starting strength where it wouldn't melt the earth it could only be decaying for 10000 years. How can the earth be 4.6 Ga? Of course, this is based on uniformitarian assumptions, but scientists can't reject the philosophy now! This list is not exhaustive. If someone believes it is 3:15 and they only look at watches that affirm it, but ignore the pile of watches in the corner that disagree, their accuracy % is skewed. The resolution is negated.