Young earth creationism radiometric dating wormald dating
It furnishes some good evidences that creationists often use.
But we won't discuss the C-14 method in this article.
First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young.
If the earth were only 6000–10 000 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far.
Some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating does not work on theoretical grounds (for example, Arndts and Overn 1981; Gill 1996) but such attempts invariably have fatal flaws (see Dalrymple 1984; York and Dalrymple 2000).Only rarely does a creationist actually find an incorrect radiometric result (Austin 1996; Rugg and Austin 1998) that has not already been revealed and discussed in the scientific literature.The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons.One is the Carbon-14 system used for dating fragments of once-living organisms.It's never used for non-organic samples, and almost never even attempted if the sample is thought to be much older than about 50,000 years.
Before 1955, ages for the Earth based on uranium/thorium/lead ratios were generally about a billion years younger than the currently popular 4.5 billion years. old Earth is reviewed and deficiencies of the uranium/lead method are discussed.