Notes:
The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions
being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other
two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object
being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no
loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history).
Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques
such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc.
However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where
the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the
position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe,
"Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are
documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were
dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented
by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication",
where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the
"already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples
giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".
Creationists have also advanced theories which may explain why rock samples
appear to have old ages, and question the validity of the "isochron"
dating procedure, which uses multiple samples. The bottom line is that
radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute
dating method we would like to have.
Go to Creation Science home page
