Could radiometric dating be wrong ryan gosling is dating 2016
" It sounds like pretty powerful evidence when you first hear about it, but the obvious question that needs to be asked is: How trustworthy is the science behind these findings? One crucial mistake that these creationists made was using the wrong equipment to date their sample. I think I actually have an idea of what went wrong here: these creationists, at the outset of their study, had a very good plan in place for how to conduct rigorous analysis on this question; in the course of their research, however, they ended up dropping this plan , so they just said "Fuck it" and decided to wing it from that point on.
More examples of similar such discrepancies are cited in a lecture given by creationist Andrew Snelling.
She noted that climate-change deniers will argue against global warming by pointing out that climate has varied in the past, and she was like: "Yeah, we know: ." Something similar is going on here with radiometric dating: The experts who study this topic extensively point out that sometimes, slight variability is observed in the decay rates of certain elements; creationists seize upon this and they're like: "Aha! ", and the scientists are like: "Uh, we're actually well aware of this.
In fact, that's actually my research that you're citing." —Creationists will also argue that several scientific findings prove that radiometric dating is unreliable. That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples.
These dates are perfectly in line with the dates we saw in the Mount St Helens study; so perhaps the explanation is, yet again, residual equipment contamination, or foreign rock intrusion? I told you this stuff doesn't get you high." No, the only reason it's not getting you high is because you're not using it correctly.
Why is a person as prominent as Eric Hovind not making sure that his references actually support what he claims they do?The young-earth creationist belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old massively contradicts the scientific conclusion that it's actually 4.5 billion years old. Imagine, by analogy, that a murder suspect is being questioned by detectives.