Radio metric dating
Thus radioactive dating relies purely on assumptions.
We could put forward the following counter arguments to the constancy of these assumptions: a) The constancy of cosmic ray bombardment might be questioned.
If even a small percentage of the limestone deposits were still in the form of living marine organisms at the time of the Flood, then the small amount of carbon-14 would have mixed with a much larger carbon-12 reservoir, thus resulting in a drastically reduced ratio.
Specimens would then look much older than they actually are.
We thank you in advance for partnering with us in this small but significant way. All methods of radioactive dating rely on three assumptions that may not necessarily be true: It is assumed that the rate of decay has remained constant over time.
This assumption is backed by numerous scientific studies and is relatively sound.
The current high rate of entry might be a consequence of a disturbed post-Flood environment that altered the .
Some scientists argue that the magnetic field of the earth has declined over time.
While there is no proof that the rates were different in the past than they are today, there is also no proof that they were the same.If dated with the carbon-14 method, the flow appears to be less than 17,000 years old, but dating with the potassium argon method gives dates of 160,000 to 43 million years.A rock sample from Nigeria was dated at 95 million years by the potassium-argon method, 750 million years by the uranium-helium method, and less than 30 million years by the fission-track method.This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted.Many examples from literature show that the zero-reset assumption is not always valid.
Search for radio metric dating:
d) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without knowledge of the exact ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14in the initial sample, the dating technique is subject to question.