Before radiometric dating

23-Oct-2019 19:13

Other measurements, some as low as 0.5 MY, were said to be anomalously young.These were explained as possible overprinting by an alkaline-rich hot water infusion.Reasons given usually involved detrital intrusion, leakage or leaching of some of the isotopes in the sample, and sometimes the initial isotopic content of the sample.

Experimental Errors The methods that give ancient ages produce almost as many "wrong" answers as "right" ones.

Between 19 several teams made a number of radiometric measurements, and the results clustered around three ages-1.8 MY, 2.4 MY, and 2.6 MY.

Each team criticized the others' techniques of rock sample selection.

Certainly the majority of scientists accept radiometric dating.

And yet, there is really no scientific reason proving that radiometric dating is correct, and a number of evidences showing that it doesn't work. We'll find that faith in materialism, and rejection of any supernatural activity, is the foundation stone of radiometric analysis, even before any measurements are made.

Experimental Errors The methods that give ancient ages produce almost as many "wrong" answers as "right" ones.

Between 19 several teams made a number of radiometric measurements, and the results clustered around three ages-1.8 MY, 2.4 MY, and 2.6 MY.

Each team criticized the others' techniques of rock sample selection.

Certainly the majority of scientists accept radiometric dating.

And yet, there is really no scientific reason proving that radiometric dating is correct, and a number of evidences showing that it doesn't work. We'll find that faith in materialism, and rejection of any supernatural activity, is the foundation stone of radiometric analysis, even before any measurements are made.

Evolutionists often describe these methods as proving the ancient age of the earth and its strata.