You're beautiful of dating radiometric assumptions 3 kinky thots Fucking

Claim CD010:

Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.


Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.


  1. Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

  2. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

    • The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

    • Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).

    • Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

    • Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

  3. The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).


Thompson, Tim, 2003. A radiometric dating resource list.

Wiens, Roger C., 1994, 2002. Radiometric dating: A Christian perspective.


  1. Dalrymple, G. Brent, 2000. Radiometric dating does work! Some examples and a critique of a failed creationist strategy. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 20(3): 14-17.
  2. Harland, W. B., R. L. Armstrong, A. V. Cox, L. E. Craig, A. G. Smith, and D. G. Smith, 1990. A Geologic Time Scale 1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Hilgen, F. J., W. Krijgsman, C. G. Langereis and L. J. Lourens, 1997. Breakthrough made in dating of the geological record. EOS 78(28): 285,288-289.
  4. Lindsay, Don, 1999. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with each other?
  5. Lindsay, Don, 2000. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with the deeper-is-older rule?
  6. Meert, Joe, 2000. Consistent radiometric dates.
  7. Rubin, Ken, 2001. The formation of the Hawaiian Islands.
  8. Thompson, Tim, n.d. Luminescence and radiometric dating.
  9. Thorne, A. et al., 1999. Australia's oldest human remains: Age of the Lake Mungo 3 skeleton. Journal of Human Evolution 36(6): 591-612.

Previous Claim: CD004   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CD011

created 2001-2-18