Soleron said:
........................................................................................ ........................................................................................ ........................................................................................ ........................................................................................ ........................................................................................ I commend them for trying, with sources. OK so on a very basic level, all one has to do to disprove Young Earth theory is to prove there are Earth rocks older than a 6000 years old. Even if you don't believe in 'billions', even 10,000 will do. Let's seperate out disproving YE from proving the 4.5 billion. And this is is simple to do with radiometric dating. We know that the rate of radioactive decay is constant (do you want to dispute this?), and by taking an isotope ratio we can figure out how long it's been decaying for. And we have found plenty of rocks that are 10,000+ years old. So what is your problem with that? Pick the single strongest argument please. |
Just a question to this. How do we KNOW for certain that the rate of radioactive decay has always been the same? Scientists obviously haven't been around long enough to test or observe this. Its possible to have changes in these factors. Radiometric dating may be the best we got, but its not ultimately reliable because assumptions still have to be made in order to calculate a date. Any test which entail even the slightest measure of assumptions cannot be taken at 100% certainty. Original number of unstable atoms in a rock cannot be known, only stable and unstable atoms that remain in the rock today. Again its currently the best solution scientists use today but I dont see that it can be determined a fool proof measurement.
