Radiometric dating of the earth

26-Dec-2019 10:47

Radiometric dating regularly gives different ages for the same object based on the method used.For example check the variance in ages from samples tested by two different methods.Predictable: Since they’re repeatable, they’re also predictable.So aircraft designers and pilots can predict, given a certain set of circumstances precisely how much runway a plane will need to take off , and land; how much fuel will be burned, etc. Given the same conditions, the aircraft doesn’t need 2,000 feet of runway to take off one day, and 500 feet to take off the next day, and 3,000 feet another day.On the other hand, would I bet my life on the supposed age of a rock, or fossil based on radiometric dating and the testimony of some Ph D scientists?No, never; and I dare say neither would those same scientists because they know the limitations of the science.

We know the age of those rocks because humans were there to observe the formation. Why this cavalier attitude toward the inaccuracy of all radiometric dating methods?The evidence many find persuasive: radiometric dating.But is radiometric dating really the objective hard science many believe it to be?But when dated by the K-Ar method, did they get an age of a few years old? The K-Ar method showed the age of the newly formed rocks as between 0.35 and 2.8 million years old.[4] Clearly incorrect. Simply because they have a story to protect, namely that “the earth is billions of years old.” Because if the true age of the earth and universe were determined, the secular religious stories of evolution and the Big Bang would be demolished, having been clearly demonstrated to be false.

The Radiometric Dating Method Once again let me point out that scientists regularly reject data from radiometric “dating” results.

[2] Variances were seen regardless of location: The expectation is that rocks located at the same site would date to the same age regardless of the method used.