Claim CD010:
Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation
and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.
Response:
- 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.
- 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).
- 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).
Links:
Thompson, Tim, 2003. A radiometric dating resource list.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
Wiens, Roger C., 1994, 2002. Radiometric dating: A Christian perspective.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
References:
- 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.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/6061_radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp
- 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.
- 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. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eos96336.html
- Lindsay, Don, 1999. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with
each other?
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/crater_chain.html
- Lindsay, Don, 2000. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with
the deeper-is-older rule?
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/confirm.html
- Meert, Joe, 2000. Consistent radiometric dates.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
- Rubin, Ken, 2001. The formation of the Hawaiian Islands.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html
- Thompson, Tim, n.d. Luminescence and radiometric dating.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/luminescence.html
- 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.
created 2001-2-18
