Answering Creationists – component 2 Responses to creationst that is general

Answering Creationists – component 2 Responses to creationst that is general

  • Typical Creationist Criticism’s of Mainstream Dating MethodsBy Chris StassenPart of Stassen’s FAQ file The chronilogical age of our planet, that also addresses a number of other assertions that are young-Earth radiometric relationship.
  • Radiometric Dating and also the Geological Time Scale – Circular Reasoning or dependable ToolsBy Andrew MacRaeMacRae received their PhD in Geology from the University of Calgary in 1996. This is certainly a well illustrated article that includes stratigraphy, general time scales, together with absolute chronometry supplied by radiometric relationship. It’s an assertion that is common young-Earthers that dating methods are circular; that fossils are dated relating to their strata and therefore the strata are dated based on their fossils. The assertion is flatly false.

    Chronilogical age of the Earthby Robert Williams that is a response that is general a few young-Earth arguments.

  • Nearly all product is on radiometric relationship, even though some other defective young-Earth age arguments are addressed also. Information, outcomes, and defective methodologies are addressed. Of specific interest is some tabulated information from Dalrymple’s chronilogical age of our planet (see below). These data well illustrate the interior consistencies of radiometric methods that are dating. A well crafted article worth reading.
  • Fresh Lava Dated As 22 Million Years OldBy Computer Scientist Don LindsayA common creationist argument is radiometric relationship must certanly be unreliable, because fresh Hawaiian lava had been dated become scores of years of age. But this might be a legend that is urban as Lindsay points out. Additionally see their The Creation/Evolution Controversy page for significantly more product on creationism, including other topics that are radiometric. (more…)